[ Roll & Rock ] [ Main Menu ]
21249
From: Shan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Close chase with 5.6M @ UTAH
URL: Alert....Earthquake
|
Please refer the above link. PREDICTION Dt. 12 to 14th March 2020: LONG VALLEY AREA, CALIFORNIA (37.61N 118.80W) 4.5~5.5M between 13th March to 2nd April 2020. Result: 5.6 2020-03-18 13:09:31.5 40.74N 112.08 W 8 5.6 WASATCH FRONT URBAN AREA, UTAH It materialized as 4th day triggering, but exceeded reasonable longitude since the reference SSD derived from nearest event data. Otherwise, it came nicely with M and time frame. Shan |
Responses:
[21355] [21254] [21255] [21256] [21257] [21261] [21262] [21266] [21263] [21267] [21250] [21258] [21264]
21355
From: sequoia, [DNS_Address]
Subject: even closer chase with 5.3M east of Mono Lake
|
Hi Shan, it just took a bit longer for your prediction to materialize " PREDICTION Dt. 12 to 14th March 2020: LONG VALLEY AREA, CALIFORNIA (37.61N 118.80W) 4.5~5.5M between 13th March to 2nd April 2020. " https://scedc.caltech.edu/recent/Quakes/nc73367270.html 38.054n 118.736w real 37.610n 118.800w predicted as stated above difference 0.556 deg in latitude, 0.064 deg in longitude approximate spherical distance 62 km sequoia |
Responses:
None
21254
From: sequoia, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Close chase with 5.6M @ UTAH
|
Hi Shan, well done. Your prediction is actually better than you think for reasons which I will not discuss here because of badmouthing badmouses. I can assure you there is no guessing involved in my derivation but real math. My hypothetical projection is near 37.5n 118.3w (rounded so as to not wake up any woke evaluators) which is about 10 km south and 50 km west of your SSD estimate. sequoia |
Responses:
[21255] [21256] [21257] [21261] [21262] [21266] [21263] [21267]
21255
From: Skywise, [DNS_Address]
Subject: still trolling
|
Yeah, it's subtle. But I'm gonna keep calling you out on it every time. You just can't seem to make a comment or argument on topic without making it personal. Brian |
Responses:
[21256] [21257] [21261] [21262] [21266] [21263] [21267]
21256
From: sequoia, [DNS_Address]
Subject: not a nuisance at all, more like a fun thing
|
Hi Brian, both you and Roger are badmouthing anyone who dares to predict earthquakes claiming you own the truth in evaluating predictions while completely ignoring the most simple measures of prediction versus reality. Indeed I am not presenting real mathematical data because of your and Roger's routine badmouthing. Your trolling is just fine, not a nuisance at all, more like a fun thing. I am actually thinking of developing a troll prediction strategy in three parameter space, who, when, mag. Then Roger can fire up his flying harddisk until it starts glowing and evaluate my 3p troll predictions. You can assist him. sequoia |
21257
From: Roger Hunter, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: not a nuisance at all, more like a fun thing
|
sequoia; You don't seem to understand that quake prediction is a serious matter, where lives are at stake, lives which would be lost if a bogus prediction were taken seriously. For that reason I have and will continue to expose frauds and mistaken individuals who think they have a solution but don't. Shan is in the latter category. He thinks he's onto something but he's wrong. Roger |
21261
From: sequoia, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: not a nuisance at all, more like a fun thing
|
Hi Roger, the simplest measure to compare theoretical predictions with real events is to determine the distance between predicted and real parameters for location, time, magnitude. Again you are collectively badmouthing the predictors on this board without presenting any evidence whatsoever for your "argument". Your attitude of ignoring the simplest measures of evaluating prediction versus reality speaks volumes of your real intentions. You have no evidence whatsoever that Shan's method does not work yet call him a fraud. Your strange statistics which depends on a completely arbitrary value of p is worth ZERO. Your conversations with Brian would actually be a good guideline for developing a new soap comedy. Where is your old buddies' prediction for a reasonably significant rocker near Long Valley? It is real easy to compare this """ PREDICTION Dt. 12 to 14th March 2020: LONG VALLEY AREA, CALIFORNIA (37.61N 118.80W) 4.5~5.5M between 13th March to 2nd April 2020. """ to whatever quakes occur after the prediction is posted and arrive at a valid conclusion as to the parametric distance between predicted and real events. Even a mathematically inclined kindergartner could do it. sequoia |
21262
From: Roger Hunter, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: not a nuisance at all, more like a fun thing
|
sequoia; You're imposing your own ideas on Shan. According to Shan, anything inside his box with the right mag is a hit. You are imposing your "distance from the center" on him as a measure of accuracy. That's fine with me but it has no bearing in my evaluation because it is not part of Shan's prediction. Note that I did NOT call Shan a fraud. He's just wrong. I know his method does not work because he's doing worse than a coin toss. Roger |
21266
From: sequoia, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: not a nuisance at all, more like a fun thing
|
Hi Roger, again you are making a false statement in claiming that I am imposing my ideas on Shan. It is completely irrelevant to the computation of parametric distances what Shan specifies as his expectation box which in itself is based on his experience. I have no problem with that. It is a guideline for the observer of his predictions. The parametric distance between prediction and reality is a measure for the quality of any prediction, Shan's, mine, Steven's, Catjo's, whoever's, whether you like it or not. I do not need your permission for that. Your wording in your previous message implied that Shan and other predictors on this board are frauds. No, Shan is not doing worse than a coin toss, because your model is abritrary in its fundamental assupmtion, the value of p, and therefore worthless no matter how often you repeat your calculations. Shan's predictions are, on average, about 3.5 times closer to the nearest real epicenter than Brian's failed model. Plus he has a high number of close predictions which cannot be explained by statistical guessing. There is no way you can achieve the routine quality of his results by random coin tossing. If that was possible you would be able to routinely make predictions as good as Shan's. But you don't because your model is a total failure. Models which don't allow for predictions, such as your's, are not worth the electrons used for their construction. sequoia |
Responses:
None
21263
From: Eve, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: not a nuisance at all, more like a fun thing
|
The quaking in this thread might be a precursor....slip strike vibes galore. |
Responses:
[21267]
21267
From: sequoia, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: not a nuisance at all, more like a fun thing
|
Hi Eve, your assessment is quite likely. According to my recollection many past big mags were preceded by heated exchanges in various earthboppin departments. Plus the Corona craziness going around the world appears to affect or extinguish mental capacities. Unfortunately, the misinformers have an advantage because they can derail the correct perception of valuable content by just throwing around much dirt and incompetent claims, without ever presenting a single shred of evidence for their baseless claims lacking any and all physical reality. For numerical verification and evaluation of your precursor based big mag prediction you can ask Roger who might want to design a boxed-in coin tossing model with arbitrarily predetermined settings of important parameters. Has it occurred to you that Corona may be an effective tool to deflect attention from other problems which certain circles need to hide from the public under all circumstances? Hope you are doing well in sun and orange land. sequoia |
Responses:
None
21250
From: Roger Hunter, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Close chase with 5.6M @ UTAH
|
Shan; Close doesn't count. It's a miss. Roger |
21258
From: Shan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Close chase with 5.6M @ UTAH
|
Poor Roger, Not at all since you want a perfect vision for a blind but the blind now able to SEE the world through wearing spectacle. The next 'operation' will bring him perfect vision. Don't cry. Please wait. Shan |
Responses:
[21264]
21264
From: Alan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Close chase with 5.6M @ UTAH
|
Shan wrote: Not at all since you want a perfect vision for a blind but the blind now able to SEE the world through wearing spectacle. The next 'operation' will bring him perfect vision. Oh.is it? But I never count my success but learning lessons from the failures. So Shan how much have you improved (corrective lenses) from say a decade or so ago since you you first claimed a success rate of 80%? Any chance you can tell us how you came to that figure? |
Responses:
None
[ Roll & Rock ] [ Main Menu ]