|
Posted by Roger Hunter on June 08, 2007 at 21:18:30:
Hi all; I've tried to avoid this because it requires me to
arbitrarily assign lat/lon borders to Shou's placenames.
But after repeated assalts from other quarters for
not doing it I've relented. Here then is my analysis of all 50 of Dr Shou's USGS
registered predictions, using the NEIC database.
# Prob h/m Score Exp. Var. CumScore CumExp CumVar
1 52.8 1 .64 -.02 .48 .64 -.02 .48
2 32.3 1 1.13 .10 .51 1.77 .08 .99
3 89.0 1 .12 -.14 .53 1.89 -.06 1.52
4 2.4 0 -.02 .07 .33 1.86 .01 1.85
5 25.7 0 -.30 .13 .52 1.56 .14 2.37
6 100.0 1 .00 -.00 .00 1.56 .14 2.37
7 43.3 0 -.57 .04 .48 1.00 .18 2.85
8 100.0 1 .00 -.00 .00 1.00 .18 2.85
9 14.0 0 -.15 .15 .54 .85 .33 3.39
10 32.3 0 -.39 .10 .51 .46 .43 3.90
11 84.1 0 -1.84 -.15 .54 -1.38 .28 4.44
12 37.0 0 -.46 .08 .49 -1.85 .36 4.93
13 67.7 0 -1.13 -.10 .51 -2.98 .26 5.44
14 75.6 1 .28 -.13 .53 -2.70 .12 5.97
15 9.3 0 -.10 .13 .52 -2.79 .25 6.48
16 2.8 0 -.03 .07 .35 -2.82 .33 6.84
17 89.9 1 .11 -.14 .52 -2.72 .19 7.36
18 100.0 1 .00 -.00 .00 -2.72 .19 7.36
19 78.6 1 .24 -.14 .53 -2.47 .05 7.89
20 45.8 0 -.61 .03 .48 -3.09 .08 8.37
21 66.7 1 .40 -.10 .50 -2.68 -.02 8.88
22 68.9 0 -1.17 -.11 .51 -3.85 -.13 9.39
23 44.6 1 .81 .03 .48 -3.04 -.09 9.87
24 90.3 1 .10 -.13 .52 -2.94 -.23 10.39
25 .0 0 -.00 .00 .00 -2.94 -.23 10.39
26 71.4 0 -1.25 -.12 .52 -4.19 -.34 10.90
27 65.4 1 .42 -.09 .50 -3.77 -.43 11.40
28 82.6 1 .19 -.15 .54 -3.58 -.58 11.94
29 81.2 0 -1.67 -.15 .54 -5.25 -.73 12.48
30 81.9 1 .20 -.15 .54 -5.05 -.87 13.02
31 88.2 1 .13 -.14 .53 -4.92 -1.01 13.56
32 94.2 1 .06 -.11 .46 -4.86 -1.12 14.02
33 60.9 1 .50 -.07 .49 -4.37 -1.19 14.51
34 92.6 1 .08 -.12 .49 -4.29 -1.31 15.00
35 70.0 1 .36 -.11 .51 -3.93 -1.42 15.51
36 4.3 0 -.04 .09 .42 -3.98 -1.33 15.93
37 30.0 1 1.20 .11 .51 -2.77 -1.22 16.44
38 13.0 1 2.04 .14 .54 -.73 -1.07 16.98
39 22.2 0 -.25 .14 .53 -.98 -.93 17.51
40 20.3 1 1.59 .14 .54 .61 -.79 18.05
41 75.0 1 .29 -.13 .53 .90 -.92 18.58
42 2.3 0 -.02 .06 .32 .87 -.86 18.90
43 45.8 0 -.61 .03 .48 .26 -.83 19.38
44 .0 0 -.00 .00 .00 .26 -.83 19.38
45 30.8 1 1.18 .11 .51 1.44 -.72 19.89
46 24.3 0 -.28 .13 .53 1.16 -.59 20.42
47 25.4 1 1.37 .13 .52 2.53 -.46 20.94
48 40.3 1 .91 .06 .49 3.44 -.40 21.43
49 100.0 1 .00 -.00 .00 3.44 -.40 21.43
50 35.1 1 1.05 .09 .50 4.49 -.31 21.93
Standard deviation is square root of 21.929
Standard deviation is 4.683
Normalized score is total score minus total expected divided by sd
( 4.488 - (-.315 ) )/ 4.683
Normalized score is 1.026
This is not significant. I believe that he has tampered with the
boundaries and/or deleted some of the quakes to produce probabilities
which will support his case.Roger
Follow Ups:
● Another problem... - Glen 22:32:15 - 6/8/2007 (71981) (1)
● clouds after earthquakes - heartland chris 07:39:57 - 6/9/2007 (71982) (1)
● Re: clouds after earthquakes - Glen 17:35:18 - 6/9/2007 (71983) (2)
● Re: clouds after earthquakes - Cathryn 22:58:46 - 6/9/2007 (71985) (1)
● Lenticulars over Anza last Tuesday - Glen 23:27:29 - 6/9/2007 (71986) (2)
● Re: Lenticulars over Anza last Tuesday - Skywise 18:49:55 - 6/10/2007 (71991) (0)
● Re: Lenticulars over Anza last Tuesday - Cathryn 14:31:43 - 6/10/2007 (71990) (0)
● Re: clouds after earthquakes - Roger Hunter 18:45:15 - 6/9/2007 (71984) (2)
● That's OK, but... - Glen 13:12:51 - 6/10/2007 (71989) (0)
● Re: clouds after earthquakes - Barbara 08:08:09 - 6/10/2007 (71987) (1)
● Re: clouds after earthquakes - Roger Hunter 09:56:09 - 6/10/2007 (71988) (0)
|
