Hi EQF,

> In addition to being a professional analyst I am also a disaster management professional. I have training and accreditation or licenses from at least four different organizations here in the U.S. that state that I am qualified to do disaster management work or am licensed to do that type of work.

First I've heard of it.

> And, as a professional in this field I will say the following once again. And it is fortunate that all of this is being confined to the EarthWaves group rather than being discussed in the Newsgroups.

LOL! Yes, the flames get pretty high over there.

> It appears to me that you are making about the most serious mistake that a disaster management person or researcher could make. And that is to form a negative opinion regarding an extremely important subject and then try to prove that that opinion is correct rather than let the data speak for themselves.

It appears to me that you've done the opposite by deciding it can be done and then looking for evidence to support it.

> It appears that you have decided that earthquakes can’t be predicted. And you intend to stick with that opinion.

Not at all. I'm merely examining the evidence from those who think they can do it. It's not my fault that they all fail.

> That can’t be done with disaster mitigation work. If there is any chance that some method or whatever might be useful for dealing with that particular type of disaster etc. it can’t simply be ignored. Instead it if looks like it might produce any helpful data at all it has to be examined in detail to see if it can be improved.

That's what I'm doing, examining your graphs to see if they work.

> You said, “This type of study should have been done 10 years ago.”

That's right.

> Well, the computer programs that are generating these data became operational in just the past few months. You should know that because you wrote one of them. And that particular one got put into use a little over a year ago. Additionally, you know that the Web site where I am now storing these reports became operational just a few weeks ago.

But the program should have been written 10 years ago and tested thoroughly at that time.

> The last deadly earthquake that I know of here in the U.S. was the California earthquake that occurred at 121 W on December 22, 2003. It claimed two lives. A few days later another earthquake in Bam, Iran at 58 E claimed tens of thousands of lives.

Yes.

> If you look at the year 2003 chart on the Year Chart Web page and the appropriate chart on the Archives Web page you will see that there is some longitude line peak structure around 121 W and also around 58 E before those earthquakes occurred. And had my computer programs existed at that time then people might have been able to tell that one or both of those earthquakes was approaching. Lives might have been saved. However, based on your comments, those types of data are of no value. And they should be ignored.

That's right. False alarms can cause more damage than the quakes. They also damage the credibility of the predictor leading to valid predictions being ignored.

> I didn’t say that preparing that chart would prove that this forecasting method works. I simply said that it would be a helpful study. And since you did that original work and reported on some of the results I am going to generate a copy of the year 2009 chart myself and plot the 7 + magnitude earthquakes and see what the data look like. I can display the entire chart on my computer screen. But it won’t presently show individual earthquakes like that.

It was easier that I thought. The chart will print on 3 sheets with MS Paint and a copy of the bottom legend works nicely as a ruler to plot the quakes.

> On April 4, 2010 there was a very powerful earthquake in Mexico at 115 W. And if you look at that chart you can see that there was some line peak structure at 115 W in early January of 2010. Then it disappeared. Those line peaks might have been pointing to the approach of the earthquake. I don’t know why they would then disappear. But on my Archives – Interpret Web page there are a number of theories discussed regarding that.

No official in the world would take any action on evidence that slim, especially when you cannot explain it in detail and show a record of reliability.

> I am personally certain that these EM Signals are at times pointing to approaching seismic activity. However, I don’t yet know why the signals tend to point to certain earthquakes and not others. That is the reason for doing these studies. It is likely that only some of the signals can be detected where I live. Others might be detectable elsewhere.

It's also possible that the correspondences you see are merely chance correlations between unrelated phenomena.

Roger