EQF: You wrote:

"As a result, it is up to each individual to keep track of his or her hits and misses. And it is up to him or her to let other people know about them. That is the only way that anyone can tell if a person is having any success."

The obvious problem with this system is that some people lie. Only a prediction should count, unless you are talking about data of the anecdotal type. If you think that has real value, then go ahead and count my prediction of the Baja 7.2. I knew it was coming, I just never realized it would come on the day I made my assessment. I was going to give myself a two-month window.

Next time I get one of my hunches, I will for sure post it somewhere. That is two for me in my lifetime. The night before the Sylmar, CA 6.6 on February 9, 1971 I told everyone in my dorm who was up into the wee hours that a big earthquake was going to hit immediately. And I was right. It was downright spooky. I was looking at no data; I just had that same gut feeling I had the day of the Baja quake.

I should say that I had absolutely no inkling that the Loma Prieta earthquake was going to strike when it did. Maybe because we were in New York City when it hit. I don't know.

"So, if a significant earthquake occurs and someone believes that his or her forecasting procedure was able to detect its approach then it is important that he or she say something about that even if it is after the earthquake has occurred. Then people can ask for additional information such as what forecasting methods was used etc. At the moment I don’t know what method you used for that Mexico earthquake and I would be interested in hearing what it was.

"So, if a significant earthquake occurs and someone believes that his or her forecasting procedure was able to detect its approach then it is important that he or she say something about that even if it is after the earthquake has occurred. Then people can ask for additional information such as what forecasting methods was used etc. At the moment I don’t know what method you used for that Mexico earthquake and I would be interested in hearing what it was.

"So, if a significant earthquake occurs and someone believes that his or her forecasting procedure was able to detect its approach then it is important that he or she say something about that even if it is after the earthquake has occurred. Then people can ask for additional information such as what forecasting methods was used etc. At the moment I don’t know what method you used for that Mexico earthquake and I would be interested in hearing what it was."

I saw increased seismicity in the area the morning of the quake, and had that gut feeling I was talking about. That's it.

"If you look that the sci.geo.earthquakes Internet Newsgroup you will see an Earthquake Advisory that I myself posted there on June 6, 2010 plus an evaluation of the forecast. The recent powerful Nicobar Islands earthquakes looks like it is the one that I was expecting."

If you predicted that on sci.geo.earthquakes, congratulations!

"I intended to post a warning to this bulletin board but was just too busy and felt that the sci.geo.earthquakes advisory would be adequate."

It is. Clearly, if you post an accurate forecast or prediction anywhere on the web, that should be enough to satisfy even the most diehard skeptic. At least in my humble opinion.

Cathryn