Hi Canie: Nice link and info.

Here is my 2 cents worth on it.

It just May be possible that:

1) The EQ model(s) shown are incorrect.

2) The erroneous conclusion is derived from the erroneous model(s) (that you can't predict individual quakes). The comment about Parkfield and the probability of the model being (in)correct should provide a clue for changing directions (read "model(s)")).

3)Adding more strain/seismic gear will not further illuminate the problem or solution.

4) Precursors discussed are geology-centric as are the models, the approach, and conclusions. No breakthrough will ever occur given these constraints (especially if research funding is guided by same).

5)There are two types of quakes...one of which releases large amounts of power. This mechanism is different from that which leads to smaller quakes. No strain gauges or seismo gear will ever be able to discern these differences.

6) EQ lights - a specific process wherein one could calc. the emission wavelength power spectrum. A big hint for anybody who's reading this and doesn't think I'm talking science fiction here.

7) A quake happening 5 years later after some large quake is not an "aftershock"...it is a separate event.

8) +/- "x" days around a main large earthquake encompasses the entire set of aftershocks and foreshock quakes. Other events are entirely separate / different events. The time unit is much less than "years"....

9) The stress paradox is explained....

10) The "no-heat" mystery is explained....

11) One more large clue/ hint is found in Lucy's answer to one particular question near the end of the tape in the Q & A session. Keep in mind that a surgeon knows surgery best, an accountant knows the books the best, and a geologist/seismologist knows rock (dynamics)the best, etc.

12) There was a new relevant discovery in 2001...opening a doorway.

Since I'm working on a publication I'm being vague intentionally but thought I would show what could be possible to the inquisitive....

This is also good reading for die hard "tow-the-line-no-matter-what" scientists who enjoy reading science fiction...:-)