| Roll & Rock
|
[
Roll & Rock ] [ Main Menu ] |
|
|
|
21178 |
|
|
Date: March 10, 2020 at 09:45:08
From: Shan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Close chase with 5.5M @ GALAPAGOS ISLANDS |
URL: Alert....Earthquake |
|
Hi all,
Please refer the above link.
PREDICTION Dt.2nd & 3rd March 2020:
GALAPAGOS ISLANDS (2.37N 95.54W) 5~6M
between 2nd to 22nd March 2020.
Result:
5.5 2020-03-10 11:13:48.6 1.09N 90.86W 10 5.5
GALAPAGOS ISLANDS REGION
Please note that this was occurred as 8th day result
after registering SSD. Except longitude which fall
on outside of the predicted parameter, the other 2
parameters i.e. time frame and Magnitude were came
true as predicted. Interestingly these other hemisphere
locations were mostly predicted with inverted SSD
signals and the deviations in the parameters will be
set right soon. Please note that these are the output
of just 3 hours (now a days only 2 hours) of watching
SSD. Wonders may happen if concentrating more hours
of SSD.
Shan
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[21217] [21219] [21183] [21186] [21189] [21192] [21190] |
|
21217 |
|
|
Date: March 13, 2020 at 08:23:06
From: Steven, [DNS_Address]
Subject: More to come GALAPAGOS ISLANDS |
|
|
That area as of March 13th looks hot for more action.
The 5.5 may have been the foreshock and a larger rocker might be on the way. Probably within the next 48 hours 5.6 -6.7 mag.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[21219] |
|
21219 |
|
|
Date: March 13, 2020 at 10:20:18
From: Shan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: More to come GALAPAGOS ISLANDS |
|
|
Hi Steven,
So far not big SSD but moderate activities seen near OFF
COAST OF CENTRAL AMERICA (3.31N 84.04W) 5~6M.
Let us watch.
Shan
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
21183 |
|
|
Date: March 10, 2020 at 12:48:36
From: sequoia, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Close chase with 5.5M @ GALAPAGOS ISLANDS |
|
|
Hi Shan,
I see a strong possibility for a m8.6 fairly close to (3n 82w) which is a
bit offshore the Ecuador coast
While you and I are chasing real events some high-profile number
fiddlers are having a fractional fit on fractional windows. Let's see
what kind of prediction they come up with.
sequoia
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[21186] [21189] [21192] [21190] |
|
21186 |
|
|
Date: March 10, 2020 at 14:04:58
From: Skywise, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Troll |
|
|
How can anyone respect anything you have to say? When you
keep throwing around snide comments and insults instead
of making a cogent argument?
Do you act like this face to face to people? Or is it just
because you can 'hide' behind the screen?
Grow up. Or are you really an 8 year old brat like you're
acting? waaaaaaahh!!!!
Brian
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[21189] [21192] [21190] |
|
21189 |
|
|
Date: March 10, 2020 at 15:47:37
From: sequoia, [DNS_Address]
Subject: your fractional windows represent your fractional reality |
|
|
Hi Brian,
you and Roger pretend to own the truth in evaluating earthquake
predictions when all you are offering is a model devoid of all
physics. Any "cogent arguments", all of them mathematically
correct and easy to verify, which I have presented to you and
Roger are routinely trampled upon by both of you without
presenting even a singular piece of constructive criticism.
Your fractional windows have no relationship with the physical
reality of earthquake predictions. You know it. Roger knows it. Yet
you repeat your statistical propaganda ad nauseum.
Roger and you hang around this board for the purpose of shutting
down anyone who dares question the official but completely false
and unproven narrative that earthquakes cannot be reliably
predicted.
Not once did you counter my "cogent argument" that Shan's
average distance between predicted and real quakes is at least 3.5
times better than your box model which you are trying to sell here.
Nor did you counter my "cogent argument" that Shan's high
number of close calls in location estimates cannot be explained
away with your box model which produces fake "predictions" of
nothing but shameful quality.
The fact that Roger only weeks ago announced that he cannot
evaluate single predictions is a really bad joke. He claims to be the
master of earthquake prediction evaluation but cannot, according
to his own statement, evaluate any singular prediction. Your
discussion on fractional windows delivers nothing but obfuscation
and fog thicker than its San Francisco sibling in summer.
sequoia
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[21192] [21190] |
|
21192 |
|
|
Date: March 10, 2020 at 19:39:47
From: Roger Hunter, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: your fractional windows represent your fractional reality |
|
|
sequoia;
When I said I couldn't do single predictions I meant
the program is not designed for single predictions.
It could be but it isn't. That's all.
Roger
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
21190 |
|
|
Date: March 10, 2020 at 15:52:20
From: Skywise, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Thank you for helping prove my point.(NT) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
[
Roll & Rock ] [ Main Menu ] |