| Roll & Rock
|
[
Roll & Rock ] [ Main Menu ] |
|
|
|
23109 |
|
|
Date: January 07, 2024 at 02:15:12
From: Leonardo, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Mag. 7.3+ 7Jan24 12:00 UTC to 15Jan24 timing forecast |
|
|
Forecast B: 7.3+ 7Jan24 12:00 U to 15Jan24
Just now
Using a (secondary) indicator which was only
partially looked at (call it method B) I'm forecasting
a Mag. 7.3+ to happen in the 8 day time period
starting:
7 Jan. 2024 at 12:00 UTC
(until 15 Jan. 2024).
This is an ongoing experiment and magnitudes are
determined by any tsunami.gov preliminary magnitude
report of this forcaster's choice.
Posted: 7 Jan. 2024 10:11-14 AM UTC
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[23126] [23125] [23110] [23127] [23141] [23133] [23137] |
|
23126 |
|
|
Date: January 09, 2024 at 00:25:02
From: Leonardo, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Event: Mag. 7.0 8 Jan 24 20:48 UTC |
|
|
Multiple stations reporting a mag . 7.0
Event on tsunami.gov
01-08-2024 20:57:42
01-08-2024 20:48:46 7 57 Mi. 4.9° N 126.3°
E IN THE TALAUD ISLANDS, INDONESIA
AK/BC/US West Coast Informational #1
Select Resource
01-08-2024 20:57:28
01-08-2024 20:48:46 7 57 Mi. 4.9° N 126.3°
E KEPULAUAN TALAUD INDONESIA Guam/CNMI
Informational #1
Select Resource
01-08-2024 20:57:09
01-08-2024 20:48:46 7 57 Mi. 4.9° N 126.3°
E KEPULAUAN TALAUD INDONESIA American Samoa
Informational #1
Select Resource
01-08-2024 20:56:46
01-08-2024 20:48:46 7 57 Mi. 4.9° N 126.3°
E KEPULAUAN TALAUD INDONESIA Hawaii
Informational #1
Select Resource
01-08-2024 20:56:22
01-08-2024 20:48:46 7 57 Mi. 4.9° N 126.3°
E KEPULAUAN TALAUD INDONESIA Non-US/Canada
Pacific Informational #1
Select Resource
01
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
23125 |
|
|
Date: January 08, 2024 at 20:54:16
From: Skywise, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Mag. 7.3+ 7Jan24 12:00 UTC to 15Jan24 timing forecast |
|
|
"...magnitudes are determined by any tsunami.gov preliminary
magnitude report of this forcaster's choice."
Not an accurate way to gauge your success. Tsunami.gov messages use
preliminary magnitudes (stated right in their bulletins) which are
subject to adjustment, and could go either up or down as the data
is more closely assessed.
USGS is about as official a magnitude you can get, and they update
as the data is reviewed. If you suspect a possible hit, use USGS,
and wait a few days for the magnitude to settle after it is
reviewed.
Brian
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
23110 |
|
|
Date: January 07, 2024 at 09:51:35
From: EQF, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Mag. 7.3+ 7Jan24 12:00 UTC to 15Jan24 timing forecast |
|
|
Posted by EQF on January 7, 2024
My general forecasting program is gradually getting better organized. That is making it possible for me to interact more with other earthquake researchers, forecasters, and even people who are doing this type of work as a hobby.
Do you have any likely locations or just some general areas of the world for the proposed earthquake?
I might be able to generate or confirm some possible location information if you can point to one or more areas.
I am presently not expecting any high magnitude earthquakes myself for the next few days. But that situation can change in just a day.
With time, you might want to learn how to interpret the forecast data that I post here and on my Web site. That could provide you with some help.
For example, when you suspect that an earthquake might be approaching, if the data points on my EMS.png, EQ-EMS.png and Chart-C.png show strong signals at the same time when decided an earthquake might occur, that could provide some confirmation for your forecast and also provide some possible location information.
Good luck.
Regards,
EQF
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[23127] [23141] [23133] [23137] |
|
23127 |
|
|
Date: January 09, 2024 at 00:44:54
From: Leonardo, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Mag. 7.3+ 7Jan24 12:00 UTC to 15Jan24 timing forecast |
|
|
EQF - I don't forcast locations (at this time).
Since there is no evidence of "statistical
significance" in your forecasting work I'll decline
your offer.
Also your E.M. signal frequencies
and theory remain cloaked in opacity thus
reducing the value of your work to zero for
forecasting work.
You have done alot of busy work with fancy
Graphs and such and that is notable but not useful.
Have you considered taking a probability and
Syatistics course ? And then applying the
concepts to your work ? I believe that path
would be more persuasive as far as "lead on
the target goes" (figuratively speaking).
Good Luck
Regards,
Leonardo
P.s. you no doubt have done a lot of work
but sadly it is not provably responsive to
addressing successful forecasting over
the long haul (one-off hits aside). (Who
knows --once you sift using statistics you
might come up with something ?)
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[23141] [23133] [23137] |
|
23141 |
|
|
Date: January 16, 2024 at 11:29:27
From: EQF, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Ignore Those Posts - Jan. 16, 2024 |
|
|
Posted by EQF on January 16, 2024
Hi Leonardo,
I strongly recommend that you and others who are posting notes to this forum ignore that one individual's posts. Don't even respond to them.
As I stated in my recent post to you, my top 5 priority humanitarian projects involve specific ways of keeping us all from becoming specks of radioactive dust floating around in the atmosphere. You can easily guess what that means. And if it wasn't clear before, I have also stated that the U.S. and other governments make VERY GOOD use of my advice regarding such matters.
This is serious business.
That other poster doesn't appear to me to care or have any awareness that all of this involves critically important U.S. national security matters.
My advice to you and others is "Don't get involved with this." Just ignore him (or her).
These are personal opinions.
Regards to all,
EQF
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
23133 |
|
|
Date: January 10, 2024 at 21:50:35
From: EQF, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Mag. 7.3+ 7Jan24 12:00 UTC to 15Jan24 timing forecast |
|
|
Posted by EQF on January 10, 2024
I read only a fraction of the posts sent to this forum. It is difficult for me to see how Mr. Bopp could read them all. But, he stated in one of his posts that he doesn’t actually read each and every one. He likely will read this one.
The reason for my saying this is the fact that I have not seen any posts that state that you have a scientific background. I myself have two degrees in science from major universities. One is a specialty research and problem solving degree. So, two major institutions have stated that I have a fairly good idea regarding what is “good” science and what is “not so good” science.
Additionally, governments around the world have been using my free disaster management advice for a very long time. Government officials and scientists are not totally dumb people, or at least not all of them are in spite of their determination to convince everyone people that they don’t have any operational brain cells.
If you don’t have at least one degree in science then your comments are understandable. If you do have a degree or two or three in science then I will repeat what your professors likely told you many times while you were in undergraduate school.
“DO YOUR HOMEWORK !!!”
Your comments clearly indicate to me that you haven’t even attempted to do any homework.
“Homework” means that you visited my Web site and read how my earthquake forecasting program works. If you had done that then in my opinion, you wouldn’t have or at least shouldn’t have made those comments.
It would take someone with a B.S. in physics a good part of a week to read all of the information on my Web site. To save you the trouble I will briefly tell you what is there.
My forecasting program consists of two major parts.
Part 1 involves determining what forces caused an earthquake to occur at a specific time. It is 100% based on statistical analyses.
Part 2 involves comparing EM Signal data with earthquake data. Again, it is largely based on statistics.
Here are some details.
PART 1 – The Computer Program
That program looks at the various forces that could cause an earthquake to occur when it does. They include tidal forces such as the Solid Earth Tide and ocean tides and sun and moon location data.
The Solid Earth Tide data have been generated using a program called “Etgtab” that was created by the late scientist George Wenzel. I seem to remember that he was German. Executable versions of the program can be found at various Internet Web sites.
The ocean tide data were generated by a program called “T-Bone.” The data it generates are free downloads. I can’t even guess where that name came from.
Someone who used to post notes here named Roger and I created the computer code that calculate exactly where the sun and moon are in the sky at a specific point in time and also their exact distance from the Earth. Roger got the original basic sun and moon calculations from a helpful astronomy expert. Those sun and moon data are in excellent agreement with the U.S. Navy’s MICA program. It took Roger and me some six months of work to get everything right.
The program not only shows where the sun and moon are at specific points in time, it also calculates the latitude and longitude of the point on the surface of the Earth where the “Tide Generating Force” is strongest. That is vitally important information related to earthquakes. As far as I am aware, Roger’s and my program is the only one in existence that generates those types of data.
If you have a good background in physics or astronomy then you are probably aware that the Tide Generating Force is related to the distance between the sun and the Earth, for example, to the third power.
In contrast, the force of gravity acting on the sun and the Earth, for example, is related to the square of the distance between them.
My computer program then does millions of probability calculations to determine which of those forces etc. had the strongest effect on the specific earthquake that is being evaluated. To do the comparisons it uses a database file of more than 100,000 past earthquakes that had magnitudes of 5 and higher. The database file goes back to the start of 1973.
The charts that the program generates then show that the earthquake being studied had triggering characteristics that were most similar to past earthquakes that occurred at specific longitudes.
Some of the time the data show that the earthquake being studied looked like other earthquakes that occurred in the same fault zone system where the earthquake itself occurred.
Perhaps most of the time it shows that the earthquake looked like past earthquakes that occurred at a different longitude. That is how earthquakes work. They do what they want to do, not what we would like them to do.
Over the years, as more and more earthquakes have been added to my database file, my computer program has produced increasingly accurate results. That is basically how most or all statistics programs work.
The # 1 goal involved with this computer program is to get it translated from a very slow version of Perl to a faster and more modern language. I know which one will be used. So far, I simply haven’t had time to get a group organized to do the translation.
Once that newer program is up and running, work will begin on optimizing it. Its present probability equations have never been optimized. The newer version of the program will have the ability to optimize itself. I believe that that is how probably all modern AI programs work.
That optimized computer program will then be used by scientists around the world when they study earthquakes. Nothing like that program has ever been created as far as I am aware. It took me about a million dollars worth of my research time and decades of time to create it. Research doesn’t come cheap!
The basic code were formally copyrighted years ago and are free for anyone to use under a GNU license. An early copy of the program is available somewhere on my Web site. The latest version is too complex to keep storing there. It would take too much time. Plus, as I stated, the main goal is to get it translated into a faster computer language.
PART 2 – The EM Signal Evaluation Part
When EM Signal detection times are entered into the program it generally uses those same calculations to determine the most probable location of the fault zone where the EM Signal got started. The EM Signal calculations are slightly different than the earthquake calculations because there is no longitude information available regarding the EM Signal. With the earthquake calculations the program has its longitude information to work with.
PART 3 – The Value Of These EM Signals
There are presently perhaps two dozen earthquake forecasting programs out there. They largely involve evaluating different earthquake precursors. Quite a few generate high quality information. The latest new program that I have read about is an AI program developed by a research group in Texas. It generated impressive results for the area that was studied. However, I believe that its accuracy will go down quite a bit when it is used to study earthquakes occurring in more complex fault zone systems such as around Japan.
On December 30, 1994 I sent a FAX to USGS personnel stating that my EM Signal data indicated that a major earthquake was on the way. At that time I had not yet developed any routines for generating WHEN and WHERE data. I simply told them to keep their eyes open for a major earthquake so that they could more rapidly respond when it DID occur.
A little over two weeks later, Kobe, Japan got hit by a devastating earthquake. More than 5000 people reportedly perished.
On January 25, 2001 I phoned my contacts at the United Nations and told them that they needed to get ready to respond to a major earthquake. We talked on and off for about five hours. At that time I had developed some fairly primitive location generation resources that I referred to as “Wave Charts.” And I used them to try to generate some location data.
In less than 24 hours, an earthquake in India reportedly claimed more than 20,000 lives.
My present computer program demonstrates that the EM Signal data that I had collected back in 2001 were indicating with a high degree of certainty that the EM Signals and the earthquake were linked.
I never learned if that warning to U.N. personnel saved any lives. Two of the people I talked with at that time are still out there but are retired from U.N. activities.
With one very public and widely seen forecast that I made back in 1998 I stated that I was watching for significant seismic activity in either Iran or Afghanistan. I knew the likely location of the expected earthquake but did not include that with my public prediction as I was concerned regarding how upset people at those locations might get.
Exactly when and where I expected, several days later an earthquake in Afghanistan reportedly claimed more than 4000 lives.
Years ago, one of my colleagues discussed my EM Signal data and computer program at a major disaster management conference in Beijing, China.
The EM Signals that I work with are extremely valuable earthquake precursors. Unfortunately what I learned after I started working in this science long ago is the fact that such slow progress is being made partly because instead of trying to work together to accurately predict at least ONE earthquake, earthquake forecasters around the world seem to be far more interested in fighting with one another like cats and dogs for recognition, publications etc.
OTHER HUMANITARIAN PROJECTS
There are some people at the highest levels of the U.S. government know who I am because I have been so successful over the decades with solving world problems that THEY should have solved. That is what THEY are getting paid for. I don’t get paid for solving world problems.
I presently have some two dozen projects that I am trying to get moving along. One that I have had a considerable amount of success with over the years has involved getting governments to develop Renewable Energy resources. If you are more than 15 years old then you have already probably correctly determined that government officials can’t seem to solve any type of problem without getting help from outside.
My earthquake forecasting work is not moving along faster because the top five projects on my projects list all involve keeping each of us from becoming specks of radioactive dust floating around in the atmosphere. You can easily guess what I am talking about. One of my past efforts along those lines was highly successful. Again, realistically, you CAN’T expect government officials to have enough active brain cells to be able to do that type of work on their own.
Earthquake forecasting has to wait its turn in line.
If you have any specific questions regarding earthquake forecasting then go ahead and ask them. I will try to answer them if possible. But again as I stated, before expressing an opinion regarding something that can determine if many thousands of people will live or perish during an earthquake:
YOU NEED TO DO YOUR HOMEWORK !!!
These are personal opinions.
Regards to all,
EQF
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[23137] |
|
23137 |
|
|
Date: January 13, 2024 at 15:32:02
From: Skywise, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Mag. 7.3+ 7Jan24 12:00 UTC to 15Jan24 timing forecast |
|
|
Ed, you are grossly committing some logical errors in your post. Most notably,
Appeal to Authority.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
It is not correct to say that a person who does not have a degree in a topic
does not have knowledge of the topic, and therefore cannot discuss the topic.
It is perfectly possible for someone who is not formally educated on a topic to
be knowledgeable, perhaps through dedicated self study, and to be able to argue
the topic effectively with validity.
A corollary to this is, just because a person DOES have a formal education on a
topic, this does NOT automatically make them correct in their arguments on that
topic. It is perfectly possible for a formally educated person to be oh so very
wrong in an argument in the topic for which they have a degree.
Neither, does having formal education in one or more topics make that person an
authority on other topics. Do you have any degrees in the geo-sciences? I don't
recall you claiming to. So, no? Does that mean I can now say you have no
standing to discuss earthquakes and quake prediction?
Another problem is with your claim of education degrees, that you have for
years (decades?) claimed to have several types of degrees, but to my knowledge
have never divulged exactly what those degrees are. You have been asked many
times and failed to answer. At best, there is some information that you may
have a degree in chemistry and I have seen possible evidence to back up that
claim, but nothing more.
The next problem is with your EM signals. This is something else that you have
been asked about many times yet to my knowledge, again over years and perhaps
decades, have never fully answered. What exactly are these EM signals? How do
you detect them?
In point of fact, you make many, many, MANY claims, particularly about
involvement with various government agencies and projects, yet have NEVER
divulged what any of it is.
A lot of claims, a lot of avoiding the questions. Are you by chance a
politician? ;)
Finally, "These are personal opinions" is also a logical fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_entitled_to_my_opinion
You make a lot of claims with no hard evidence to be examined to corroborate
them. If you know anything of science, ad the scientific method, claims require
evidence. You need factual data that can be examined and tested and verified.
Opinions don't count for squat.
To the point, let's discuss the possibilities of earthquake prediction. But
present evidence, and argue from reasoned logic. Not make grandiose obfuscated
and opinionated claims.
Lonardo, I think your points are exactly right regarding the need for
statistical analysis.
Brian
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
[
Roll & Rock ] [ Main Menu ] |