Hi,

I had a look and the method of prediction seems to be rather vague and I'm sure like any other method of forecasting it would have to be closely monitored for a long period of time to see if it is a proven method.

Unless a forecast is more "site specific" it is difficult to define hits from misses. IE: Saying an earthquake is going to occur in Montana is not nearly so accurate as saying within 40km of Kalispell, MT. On the site I saw forecasts for regions, which leaves a lot of latitute for hits for instance. We all know Italy has quakes all of the time as well as the Hindu Kush region and so forth.

Its much like saying there will be quakes from 1.5 to 4.5 in "the State of California" and anyone could have a hit. I tried to access the home page so I could hopefully learn more about the web author, but unfortunately I couldn't access it. Darn. I think I would batch this method with the holes in clouds theory and warm ocean temperature changes off shore of coastal areas.

I don't mean to nit pick, but as this was a topic on another board and the link was available, I think it would have been nice if you had mentioned the source of this question when you made your original post. The post made it appear as though the idea was your own. Its confusing.

Thanks for sharing, it is good to keep up with what's out there on the web.

Petra