I didn’t see that Roger had posted that note and so did not respond earlier. I have been quite busy the past few weeks. There was also some confusion regarding someone else posting forecasts as EQF forecast. And I thought that that might be what was taking place.
As I stated in notes to the board monitor, the fact that people cannot see all recent posts on a single page makes it more difficult to tell when something they might want to see has been posted.
Roger’s comments regarding my forecasting chart have virtually no significance in my opinion. And I have explained why that is the case to him in detail on quite a few occasions. Yet he constantly ignores those explanations.
The data on my Web site charts are so complex that they can only be evaluated by a person who understands what they represent and carefully studies them. And up until fairly late in 2013 when I finished a major computer program update they were to a large extent a mystery to me. I could not understand why there were line peaks clearly pointing to the approach of some powerful earthquakes and not to others. And they are MY data.
http://www.freewebs.com/eq-forecasting/Data.html
A computer program could not possibly be used to evaluate them because there just too many variables that the computer program would have to take into account.
For example, the Chart A, Chart B, and Year Chart data are all dramatically different from one another. And although the Chart A and Year Chart data might look the same, they are not.
During the calculation process, the Chart A data put a very heavily weight on past earthquakes that produced at least one fatality. The reason is that they are preferentially biased towards pointing towards past destructive earthquakes because those are the most important earthquakes to people around the world. No one cares too much about a 7 magnitude earthquake that occurs out in the middle of the ocean and does not generate a tsunami. But people are VERY concerned about a possible 7 magnitude earthquake that might occur near a city. So, those past destructive earthquakes are preferentially emphasized by the data generation computer programs.
In contrast, the Year Chart data are based on all earthquakes with no preference for what amount of destruction they caused. But there are other factors that go into the Year Chart calculations. And without knowing what they are, no computer program could be used to evaluate those data.
Roger in my opinion is trying to force the proverbial “square peg into a round hole,” or whatever.
He is saying that any data displayed regarding earthquakes must say exactly what he determines they are supposed to say. And that is nonsense.
For example, he is apparently attempting to match my line peaks with high magnitude earthquakes. And although that might seem to be logical, I have determined in the past and stated repeatedly that earthquake depth appears to have a very strong impact on where those line peaks appear on the chart. So there might be strong line peaks for a shallow 6.5 magnitude earthquake and none for a deep 7.5 magnitude one. A computer program cannot take things like that into account.
Roger appears to have just ignored those critically important data along with others in spite of the fact that I told him about them over and over. And so his analyses are of little use.
Try using the link below to look at my data for the February 6, 2013 Solomon Islands earthquake. They are some of the most extraordinary data that I have on those Year Charts. The line peaks appeared at just the right longitude months before the earthquake occurred and then disappeared right afterwards. That could not possibly happen by coincidence. And no computer program could possibly evaluate that type of data.
http://www.freewebs.com/eq-forecasting/Data.html
So, the important questions are,
“Do people actually want to know how to predict earthquakes?”
And,
“Do people really want to know how to accurately evaluate forecast data that are available on the Internet?”
Earthquakes don’t occur where I live. If they occur near where
you live then the answer to both of those questions should be “Yes.” But, it appears to me that Roger’s answer for both of them is “No.” If the available data are not saying exactly what he has decided they should say then they are in his opinion of no use.
Finally, it really doesn’t matter what he says about those data. I generally send E-mail notes to people who actually need to be aware of my forecast data when there is something significant for them to consider.
These are personal opinions.