Roger,

After all these years you keep repeating the same inaccurate information over and over. And in my opinion your arguments only show that you are not bothering to even try to learn how this forecasting program is presently working.

I recommend that you try to learn how it works or stop arguing about it. You are just wasting electrons.

When I circulate an Earthquake Warning or Advisory at the present time it usually means that there is perhaps a 75% chance that within 4 or 5 days there will be a powerful and possibly significant earthquake somewhere.

The warning is largely intended to let other earthquake forecasters around the world know that now is time for them to start checking their own data to see if they can spot anything significant looking approaching for the area where they live and work. Additionally, my charts and E-mails etc. provide some information for starting points where people might start looking for approaching seismic activity.

Since May 18, 2011 I have been recommending that other forecasters keep watch for possible activity in the northwest part of the U.S. And if there is something headed for that part of the country then I believe that it should be easy for people to spot beforehand.

And with regard to that one I have repeatedly stated that I was not expecting that it would occur within my 5 day time window. I did think that an expected one for the central Asia to Indian Ocean area would likely occur within 5 days starting on May 18. However, the one I was expecting has not occurred in that area so far.

The last time a warning was circulated was May 18. So, you can’t claim that they are being circulated every week with the hope that an earthquake matching a forecast will simply occur by chance. There have probably been quite a few times during the past few years when no warnings were circulated for months.

Additionally, this forecasting program is constantly evolving as I learn more and more about the nature and reliability of these EM Signals. Up until earlier this year I had to focus almost entirely on getting the necessary computer programs running. And there is still one that needs to get finalized though I can do without it for a while. Now I am finally having the opportunity to look at the data in more detail.

One of your arguments is that people need to get everything perfect before they say anything at all. In certain areas of science that is a guaranteed recipe for failure. It is often necessary to learn by actually running some program and in the process seeing what works and where improvements are needed. For example, after an almost endless number of updates, my present charts etc. are many, many times more advanced and easy to work with and also to generate than they were just a few years ago.

On another note,

There is something along earthquake forecasting lines that I recently observed that is somewhat upsetting.

My last warning was circulated on May 18. And people around the world saw it. On May 19 there was a moderately powerful earthquake in Turkey that reportedly claimed at least 3 lives.

From conversations with other forecasters etc. I am under the impression that the general area where that Turkey earthquake occurred is being watched by different groups for seismic activity. And given the fact that I had circulated a formal warning the day before it is not a good sign that no one was able to spot that Turkey earthquake's approach.

It had only a 5.8 magnitude according to my records. And my own forecasting method based in the U.S. would probably not be able to clearly spot the approach of one with such a low magnitude at that distance. However, if my program were being run by people in that area using their own precursor data then I believe there is a good chance that they might have been able to tell that it was headed their way.

These are personal opinions.