EQF, here's the problem
Posted by Roger Hunter on March 14, 2011 at 17:22:22:

The situation is this;

You, an unknown individual who claims multiple degrees, receive signals of an unknown nature which you believe are caused by earthquake fault activity. These signals are recorded on a device which you will not identify or describe.

As a result, you are sending advisories to government agencies, warning them to be on the alert for possible seismic activity in their area. However, you cannot say if, when, or where this may happen.

Finally, you attribute the lack of progress in predicting quakes to laziness or ignorance of the scientists in the field.

Further, you want these governments to fund research into these signals and the programs you have created to display what you think are quake probabilities.

Is that about it?

Roger


Follow Ups:
     ● Re: EQF, here's the problem - PennyB  12:39:49 - 3/15/2011  (78366)  (3)
        ● pseudo-scientists vs. amateur scientists - heartland chris  20:41:59 - 3/15/2011  (78369)  (1)
           ● Re: pseudo-scientists vs. amateur scientists - Skywise  22:22:13 - 3/15/2011  (78371)  (0)
        ● Re: EQF, here's the problem - Roger Hunter  18:00:17 - 3/15/2011  (78368)  (0)
        ● well said - heartland chris  15:01:04 - 3/15/2011  (78367)  (1)
           ● Re: well said - PennyB  23:02:26 - 3/15/2011  (78373)  (0)
     ● Re: EQF, here's the problem - EQF  08:33:43 - 3/15/2011  (78356)  (1)
        ● Re: EQF, here's the problem - Roger Hunter  08:48:21 - 3/15/2011  (78357)  (0)
     ● Re: EQF, here's the problem - heartland chris  03:06:02 - 3/15/2011  (78351)  (0)