reply to post by BO XIAN
Trying to keep track of the various warnings for major/mega quakes isn't easy, because it seems to me that they are almost constant. I doubt that a
month of any year has gone past in recent times without at least one warning of a massive, destructive quake. Often, these warnings seem to indicate
either a knowledge of what is poissible in various regions or else they are deliberate attempts to frighten the gullible.
One that I recall especially was from a couple of years back, when some guy got on here and launched a new thread claiming that someone he knew (but
whose identifying details he wouldn't reveal) was a psychic who was never wrong. This person had told him that a magnitude 10-something quake was
going to strike off China and the ensuing tsunami would sweep far inland and cause massive casualties.
I recall querying this, on the basis that (a ) there had never been a mag 10 in human history anywhere in the world, let alone a mag 10-plus and (b )
there was nowhere near the Chinese coast that could likely even produce one and (c ) if such a thing occurred, why did the psychic make no mention of
Japan, which likely would be equally impacted by the same tsunami? (Along with pretty well the entire pacific rim, by the way). I posted much the same
in this thread and asserted that the claim was basically implausible and (IMHO) no such quake was going to happen. (If anyone wants the post in this
thread I can surely find it.)
The new member, having done a very good job of publicizing his own conspiracy-syle magazine -- which he was at pains to tell us about while he denied
that it was the reason for wanting to "warn" us
-- soon vanished from the scene and (AFAIK) has not been seen amongst us since.
Frankly I feel that a fair percentage of those who run their own sites and put out such warnings are primarily interested in building up some kind of
a "following" (to attract donations to support their "work"), along with driving traffic to their sites so they can reap a small amount of $$ from
the click-throughs. Or, they hope to sell their books, magazines and DVDs, get new bookings for their (paid) lectures and so on. Or they just have big
egos that need a lot of feeding.
There is nothing like preying on people's fears to attract a following and helping people to part with their money.
That is one of the reasons why I don't launch a new thread every time I post a prediction, or even open a new thread to inform members of when my
predicitons have been right. Just with cases I've logged here I could have had a dozen threads of that type by now -- but to what purpose, beyond the
concepts of "following" and so on I mentioned above? And yes, if I followed the form of these money-chasers I wouldn't mention any predictions I'd
made which turned out to be wrong!
The only "forecasters" of quakes I am interested in looking at are those who can show some success at getting things right, within a pretty limited
range for magnitude, time and location -- with the proviso that the quakes they predict within those parameters are not highly likely to occur by
chance anyway. And their magnitude range must be reasonable: giving a range of (say) mag 4 to mag 7 is absurd: the latter is 1,000 times less likely
than the former, but there are people who use three-magnitude ranges in their so-called predictions!
And further, I am not interested in those who only keep tabs on the predictions where they are right and who bury/delete any references to ones they
make that didn't happen. If they get it wrong I want them to come out and say so! I try to be diligent in this regard, as being wrong is often just
as valuable as being right.
All I want are honest efforts. Even if they don't do very well, they have to be honest about it. Very few of those out in www-land follow these
maxims of diligence and so I pay them little heed. And I would advise others to do the same. I'd also advise people to do what we do: try to acquire
at least a basic knowledge of what is possible and where it's possible. That way it's much easier to start sorting the grains wheat from the huge
amount of chaff.
So, regarding those two people you have mentioned: what's their track record? How often have they been right, within a pretty narrow range of
tolerance? And when they've been wrong, do they publish any statement to admit it? If they don't I have no interest in them whatsoever. If they do,
I am very interested indeed.