not a random test
Posted by John Vidale on June 21, 2008 at 08:07:52:

One detail to remember is that much of the enthusiasm for syzygy-related theories came AFTER a few earthquakes seemed to show this pattern.

So your check there is a slightly higher chance of earthquakes during supermoons is not an independent test.

Let's say Jim starting to publicize his theories in the late 1970s. How significant is the pattern since 1980, very roughly the times when his statements were predictions?


Follow Ups:
     ● Re: not a random test - Roger Hunter  09:19:15 - 6/21/2008  (74066)  (1)
        ● Re: not a random test - John Vidale  10:37:07 - 6/21/2008  (74067)  (1)
           ● Re: not a random test - Roger Hunter  10:53:25 - 6/21/2008  (74068)  (2)
              ● Re: not a random test - marc / berkeley  14:25:12 - 6/24/2008  (74082)  (1)
                 ● Re: not a random test; Marc - Roger Hunter  15:42:11 - 6/24/2008  (74083)  (0)
              ● he talks about many indicators - John Vidale  11:13:23 - 6/21/2008  (74069)  (0)