reply to post by ArMaP
Kat's already addressed your query but I'd like to respond as well, if I may.
I'll start by saying that we are not all using the same methodologies in terms of what we identify as precursors, although we have found that even
so, we sometimes have agreement in respect of an event that actually transpires. For example, I generally speaking do not employ the sorts of personal
sensory perception preceptors that Kat does, but we have both achieved some fair results.
In respect of the sensory perception preceptors it's important to note that they are to some degree regionally specific: if Kat for example picks up
on something that to her indicates seismic/volcanic activity in the Baja region (as she more-or-less follows the guidelines of Charlotte King in this
regard), it does not mean I can apply that indicator if I get an identical sensory perception preceptor, for the simple reason that I'm half-way
around the world. I am subjected to different local influences in a region with entirely different geomorphology. So, I use other methods.
Someone could check by simply going back through my posts on this thread, but as best I recall, I had a success rate of around 60% on my predictions,
meaning that the given predicted events occurred within the time frame and region I stated, as well as within about mag 1 of my stated magnitude. As
my statements for location and time were quite specific (sometimes with lat. and long. given as well as the maximum number of days), I think that's
not too bad.
I see no point in making predictions that go off months into the future. It makes the odds too much in the predictor's favor and doesn't really
prove anything. Ditto for people on some sites who seem to think that predicting a mag 2-point something in an active region like Hawaii, California
or Indonesia is a big deal, or when a mag 3-point something occurs and they predicted a high mag 5 or greater, then they take it as a hit.
Yeah, we could do that. We know where quakes happen pretty often. But that's not predicting, it just stating a certainty. So we only discuss low-mag
quakes in any detail where they are either coming in larger numbers (as in swarms) and it's out of the ordinary, or when they happen in places where
even such smaller events are fairly rare. Oh, I should add, we also take note of smaller quakes in a couple of regions we are interested in. like
Nevada (where dingle events have a marked tendency to "disappear" and the "swarms" that occur go unexplained), Utah (ditto on the disappearing
act), and around the Geysers region. But this discussion is about observation of what's going on, as well
Back to my own predictions: with the ones that missed, only a few were total misses. Where they were, I tried my best to be diligent in saying so.
Some I did not count as "hits" because they were outside my time frame by more than a day or so, or else they did not fit the magnitude range or
location close enough. Some "predictors" on other sites who claim 90-plus percent accuracy would have taken them as hits. But we have a different
motivation. This is not about attracting people to our site and building ourselves up (as we don't have one and we don't care who knows about us or
not! lol!), or trying to collect ad revenue (ditto!), it's about collecting data that can be analyzed in more detail later.
Anyway it's all here on thread, and some of our results are also to be found on the "results" thread that was set up.
I think the most important thing is that we have stated our predictions and they are recorded here in this thread, along with the results. I have had
no qualms about stating "no hit" where my predictions did not come to pass within the time frame and location that I gave; it's all useful data.
But on the other hand I make less predictions anyway so it's easier to keep track of them.
But more than just the prediction side of it, we have accumulated a considerable number of references and resources on this thread, many of which
could be of value to whoever reads. If nothing else, they are useful aids to learning.
It's also been a very refreshing thread in some ways because as best I can recall, we only had one troll. His name was RussianScientists, I believe.
He ignored our posted predictions and claimed that he and only
he had the secret to doing such things, but refused to post any details or
predictions. Finally to try and make him put up or shut up, I posted a prediction, with time frame (3 days), magnitude (mag. 5 as a minimum), and even
location marked in a circle on a map (along with lat and long stated), and it came in bang on target. Mag 5, three days, within the circle on the map.
We never heard from "comrade" RussianScientists again...
EDIT to add:
As it might be of interest I just hunted back and found the posts. Here's the original prediction post:
post by JustMike.
Here's the post with the results, after the quake occurred:
post by JustMike.
And this post explains the prediction methodology I employed in this case:
post by JustMike.
[edit on 3/1/10 by JustMike]