Hi Chris,
I to was a little heavy handed with my response .. but Hey! .. it's a new year, lets make it a good year as you suggested .. Besides, its not a good idea rubbing me up the wrong way, especially when I'm polishing off the last of the Christmas Sherry
. Also, apologies to other members, its you right to join in, when and where you wish to contribute .. but lately, it just seems all contributors this past year would fit in a six man tent (or perhaps Rogers new car, if he managed to find one
, though, this year, we are missing our driver a little more than usual !! ).
As strange as it seems, I am trying to follow all advice given (thanks Brian for your resent post), and I am following the data .. the problem is, sometimes the data leads me away from the advice given !, For example ... Wednesday 30th Dec, signals recorded during the day showed extreme and abnormally high levels in the dB range .. after three hours of analysis .. no explanation of causality was found through normal search procedure. so this would generally be logged as unexplained.
Also that day, I noted that a small quake occurred in Eastern Turkey at 6:11:08 UT .. the next one didn't occur until 18:11:54, I found this a little unusual as I've been monitoring activity there .. prediction and all. As you know yourself, quakes in Turkey have been quite abundant lately, with daily counts in the mid-teens to low 20's, for some reason, this day there was only 8, this is also the day the great storm in Southern US finally stopped!. I calculated the period between quakes at 11h 57m 58s, I didn't think this had any relevance to anything until the day after, when I discovered it matched the time of Lunar day across the central belt of Turkey "exactly to the minute " .
The timings fit with the data I have, even the lunar timing, which is probably making you cringe again reading this !!, Now , I think of myself as being as factual as the next would be scientist, but I have come across four such instances in as many weeks. If this was Earthquake prediction, I have been told here .. first hit could be coincidence .. second hit could be a fluke .. third hit, people start paying attention .. fourth hit, your onto something!. But I couldn't test these curiosities here because it's regarded as pseudo !!. This does leave me with a slight dilemma .. Am I reading to much into this ? .. maybe I am, but the hypotheses fits the data ... Do I follow the advice given ? .. yes I should, but the advice conflicts with the data at hand. To give myself a helping hand, I decided to evaluate my own predictions as you suggested.
22nd Nov .. Alaska 24 hrs ..........................................................................................................
23rd Nov .. Caribbean sea 48 hrs ................................................................................................
24th Nov ................................................................... M7.6 Iberia, Peru
....................................................................M7.6 Tarauaca, Brizil
25th Nov Caribean sea 24 hrs ....................................................................................................
..................................... M6.7 Tarauaca, Brizil (05:45 UT 26th Nov)
26th Nov Dominican Republic 24 hrs ............................M6.0 Mariana region
27th Nov Sonora, Mexico ............................................................................................................
7th Dec Oklahoma ...................................................................................................................
My own conclusion suggests that I didn't get location right, Magnitude is questionable due to wrong location, percentage of hits using aspect change data 50%. Over the four days between 22nd - 26th Nov, I posted four predictions, over the same period there was 3 significant quakes, and 1 unlisted significant quake. I remember Brian mentioning if a significant quake occurred within a 7 day period of a prediction, and could be repeated, it would be a very interesting development!. The mistake I have made here is overconfidence in trying to portray skill (as mentioned), if I had stuck to predicting time period and magnitude like I should have done, the odds would have been in my favour (big signal = Antarctic ridge etc). Even if the prediction details are wrong, you have to admit that I maybe onto something here !! ... If we do have a good year, and I do manage to increase my odds at prediction by simply giving period and mag estimates, how else would I explain this other than being able to match Solar and Lunar data to my own data !!!, so you see, here lies my dilemma.
I would gladly welcome a second opinion of my evaluation, the problem with doing it yourself is, your less inclined to criticise your own work. I think for now, I'll stay with times and mag until I have sufficient experience at plotting position. As far as my present prediction is concerned, my systems are telling me there is still a heavy magnetic presence, 70 -30 it's in the Northern hemisphere, 70 - 30 that its between 30 - 40 degrees North latitude, 70 -30 for Mag 7+ ( as compared to data from the resent Afgan quake), location based on my "scientific" interpretation of available data, Afgan region, Iran, Turkey and Greece. Location based on comparable Lunar data (used for this prediction) Turkey, and/or Aegean Sea region.
Ok! that's out of the way .. after this prediction lapses, no more pseudo !! .
Sorry to here you were having personal issues, but sounds like your heading in a positive direction now! .. no big problems here apart from quake studies keeping me from maintaining my house (and chores for Mother-in-law
). I do miss my beloved astronomy though, I need AC power for that, but I can't chance disrupting the signals .. that many cobwebs in my observatory now that its starting to resemble the lower galley of the Marie Celeste
.
Thanks Chris,
Duffy,
). This is still new to me, but the more I work the data, the more I understand it. Two days ago, I reported recording a strong signal on my monitor ... at the time I could have simply predicted a 6+ quake in the next 48 hours, as it happens .. a mag 6.3 occurred this morning on the Antarctic ridge, aprox 45 degrees East of signal position (which" isn't" associated with the data I'm working on) I was told here, that the art to prediction is to evaluate and determine weather coincidence or skill is the deciding factor with any posted prediction. Thus, I am trying to portray skill by including coordinates and actual positions, as I am "still" on my own with this, only I can determine where and when this prediction will be by how much I have understood the data !. In the real world, this is pseudo science, but in my world, the data shows the quakes are not in a steady state below the surface, that's why I have been adjusting my predictions. 
.