| Science/Technology
|
[
Science/Technology ] [ Main Menu ] |
|
|
|
5895 |
|
|
Date: June 22, 2015 at 13:37:44
From: dib, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Petra is Correct! |
|
|
>While no one has a perfected system , I think Shan and Lowell Whiteside are the 2 best in the world that I have seen so far.
Neither Shan nor Whiteside nor anyone else have proven that they have the ability to predict earthquakes above what would obtain by educated guessing. Is there something missing in your brain that makes you immune to the logic that anyone, even a blind dart-thrower, would get "prediction" hits if he throws enough darts. It is ridiculous to think that a sunspot directed from a hole in the wall onto a second wall of an ordinary shed would allow the prediction of an earthquake. Most likely, any movement of that sunspot results from heating and cooling of the shed, or of the ground beneath the shed. Stating that an earthquake will occur without scientific evidence amounts to a guess, and a hit is no more significant than hitting three cherries in Reno.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5912] [5914] [5920] [5913] [5926] [5915] [5897] [5899] [5902] [5898] [5900] [5905] [5911] [5906] [5909] [5917] [5923] [5925] [5927] [5918] [5919] [5922] [5928] [5930] [5924] [5907] [5910] [5929] [5932] [5933] [5934] [5937] [5931] [5935] [5896] [5901] [5903] [5904] |
|
5912 |
|
|
Date: June 24, 2015 at 11:56:26
From: Steve, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Petra is Correct! |
|
|
Hi Dib , get out your map + darts and give it a try.
Shan and Whiteside have brilliant scientific methods that yield very good results. Petra also has a brilliant scientific method that showed good results years back , I don't know anything about her more modern system yet. Maybe she will post some forecasts again like years back.
Shan has predicted thousands of quakes publically on his website. He mostly relies on deviations in solar shadows to make mathematical and geometric calculations to determine an impending quake, strength and location. I don't think anyone has predicted more major quakes in the 7 mag - 9 mag range than Shan.
Some of his accurate predictions had no previous historical cataloged precedent and they were not based on any foreshock. Very rare predicted quakes.
Lowell Whiteside has predicted well over 15,000 earthquakes. He relies on P waves and geometrical calculations mostly as far as I can tell.
Setting the test bar at 99% might be good in the future if EQ prediction ever goes to the point of official alerts and evacuations. By applying 99% success at this point only looks to invalidate an embryonic field of science.
Can the weatherman pass a 99% test, how about a surgeon ? Does Cancer Treatment pass the 99% test ?
Anything over chance is a success. If chance is 50/50, 50% then even 75 % would be an good start. Not good enough to spawn an alert of course but still some minor significance of a developing system.
I would like to see scientific evidence that Shan and Lowell are not predicting or forecasting earthquakes.
Please do not invoke the nonsensical can't prove a negative bullshit.
that's my soap box rant for today
Good to see none of you have assumed room temperature.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5914] [5920] [5913] [5926] [5915] |
|
5914 |
|
|
Date: June 24, 2015 at 21:29:54
From: dib, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Petra is Correct! |
|
|
|
Steve, if you can't take the time to actually read the links I post in support of my post before giving me your ignorant, biased opinion about the subject of my post, then don't bother giving me your ignorant, biased opinion about the subject of my post.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5920] |
|
5920 |
|
|
Date: June 25, 2015 at 09:04:47
From: Steve, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Dib |
|
|
Hi Dib, I did read you link from many years ago.
I don't agree with Alden's ignorant biased opinion.
I am very sure my informed opinion is superior to his ignorant opinion. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting. Shan and Whiteside are indeed excellent forecasters of earthquakes regardless of anyone's ignorant biased opinion.
Science requires observation, I'm surprised you don't know that.
Now please make a well informed scientific opinion based on actual research and analysis and don't be led around by the nose by Ignorant Bobblehead Alden who may not know his ass from a hole in the ground.
Good to see you back on the board , have a great day.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
5913 |
|
|
Date: June 24, 2015 at 13:34:54
From: Roger Hunter, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Hey Petra |
|
|
So when do we get to see some results from your new
method?
You know instead of paying some college kids $2000 for
writing the program you could have asked me and I'd do
it for free.
You still can. I can act as a double check on the
programming.
Roger
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5926] [5915] |
|
5926 |
|
|
Date: June 25, 2015 at 12:00:24
From: Petra, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Hey Roger |
|
|
Hi Roger,
I think you forgot you tried to work on a minor aspect of it some years ago and it was a no-go and now it's morphed into something terribly sophisticated and no longer belongs to me.
I still work with it and in handing it over I'm receiving educational benefits as well as free travel and I'm thrilled to find myself in some respects inside the Halls of Science vs outside and it feels as though it's met the best possible outcome.
However new discoveries are still at hand and in R & D, so the trail has not run cold, though I have regrets that in trying to offer but one test program so the world of the Net might see something new, possibly exciting and above par it's sad to realize most are not interested in quality work, but doom and gloom through a host of characters who love hype.
Nonetheless, while we've been through some staunch arguments, in taking one issue at a time I learned much about the foibles of prediction so there was something learned in the process and in hindsight as always these offered quite a learning curve, yet most impressed with our worldwide foreign Nets who willing aided me when needed, despite my making it clear what I needed was for prediction purposes, they delivered rapidly and respectfully.
So to those who wish to roast and toast most scientists I'm sorry they've never been so fortunate as I because through mutual interests they rank high in my appreciation.
Petra
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
5915 |
|
|
Date: June 24, 2015 at 21:31:54
From: dib, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Hey Petra |
|
|
|
Time to clean your bifocals, Roger. Lol.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
5897 |
|
|
Date: June 23, 2015 at 08:29:21
From: Petra, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Petra is Correct! |
|
|
Hi Don,
That old adage; "if you just listen, people will tell you all you need to know" is true.
In 2011 Shan and Boyko from Romania issued predictions for an M 6.0 in Simav, Turkey where an M 5.9 had occurred and the city had been evacuated. I received e-mails from both and while Shan was releasing his on the web Boyko was going to deliver his on TV in his area.
I immediately replied that there was no need for a prediction given the area was evacuated and Shan replied "aren't all M 5.9 quakes followed by M 6.0 earthquakes?" I shared with him that no, that was not the least true and offered a catalog demonstrating it had never happened in or near Simav in the past.
Both predictions failed as no quakes of M 6.0 or greater occurred.
However, what was missing in the communication was no report by Shan that he had any deviations in his sun shadow program which suggests he was simply making the prediction based upon guessing and ditto for Boyko.
And thus in noting the rate and state of failed predictions on Shan's behalf for the Banda Aceh, Indonesia area for M 9.0 quakes it's more than apparent if a sun shadow deviation is his method for such predictions, he failed miserably. Though also apparent he knows so little about M 9.0 events he did not or still may not appreciate they're rare and thus far have not been repeated in less than 100+ year inter-event scheduling.
However, in regard to Lowell Whiteside's program it should be made clear he 'FORECASTS' earthquakes and there is a decided difference between forecasting and prediction to which forecasting allows for minor errors. Though as to his departure from public forecasting in CA under geoForecasters it was due to the organization failing to have a paid geologist on-board as it's a requirement of the California Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council.
I've known Lowell since 1998 and have learned more from him than I ever would have expected and have applied much of it to intensive research not only related to earthquakes, but medicine as well.
Though in summing up appraising earthquake prediction schemes they are most often inappropriately appraised by folks who know little about earthquakes and most notably recurrence rates and cannot appreciate where quakes occur frequently and what's a rare gem despite magnitudes.
Petra
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5899] [5902] [5898] [5900] [5905] [5911] [5906] [5909] [5917] [5923] [5925] [5927] [5918] [5919] [5922] [5928] [5930] [5924] [5907] [5910] [5929] [5932] [5933] [5934] [5937] [5931] [5935] |
|
5899 |
|
|
Date: June 23, 2015 at 21:51:32
From: dib, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Petra is Correct! |
URL: How Not to Predict Earthquakes |
|
Well, it's possible that in his dialog with Steve, Shan may be using factors other than sun shadows to make predictions. Predicting large aftershocks should give him a 10 percent improvement over his sun-shadow guessing method, but it's still not predicting, it's playing the odds, which is what Whiteside was doing. See link.
http://geology.about.com/cs/eq_prediction/a/aa030903a_4.htm
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5902] |
|
5902 |
|
|
Date: June 23, 2015 at 22:18:46
From: dib, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Petra is Correct! |
|
|
|
Btw, the article doesn't differentiate between the term "forecast" and "prediction", and neither do I.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
5898 |
|
|
Date: June 23, 2015 at 15:51:48
From: Roger Hunter, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Petra is Correct! |
|
|
Hi all;
I've personally tested everyone mentioned in this thread
except for Dr Whiteside, who has refused to cooperate.
Petra is the best of the bunch, scoring higher than any
of the rest, but not quite passing the 99% level I
require.
Roger
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5900] [5905] [5911] [5906] [5909] [5917] [5923] [5925] [5927] [5918] [5919] [5922] [5928] [5930] [5924] [5907] [5910] [5929] [5932] [5933] [5934] [5937] [5931] [5935] |
|
5900 |
|
|
Date: June 23, 2015 at 22:03:50
From: dib, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Petra is Correct! |
|
|
|
Roger, Iirc, you stated that Petra scored in the 94th percentile in the predictions you tested. If you recall, at that time, I stated that you can't play with statistics that way, and that if your assessment was correct, then Petra may have a viable prediction scheme. Inasmuch as no geologist or seismologist has ever claimed to be able to predict earthquakes on a 94% accuracy basis, then it is very likely that Petra cannot either, which implies that there is something wrong with your calculation. Iirc, you based your study on a list of predictions supplied by Petra, and not vetted by you. If that is the case, then your study is invalid. Regardless, you cannot arbitrarily decide that 94% accuracy is a flunking score in predicting earthquakes, inasmuch as nobody else, not even geologists, can come close to that figure.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5905] [5911] [5906] [5909] [5917] [5923] [5925] [5927] [5918] [5919] [5922] [5928] [5930] [5924] [5907] [5910] [5929] [5932] [5933] [5934] [5937] [5931] [5935] |
|
5905 |
|
|
Date: June 24, 2015 at 06:41:03
From: Roger Hunter, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Petra is Correct! |
|
|
Hi DiB;
> Roger, Iirc, you stated that Petra scored in the
94th percentile in the predictions you tested.
That's correct.
> If you recall, at that time, I stated that you
can't play with statistics that way, and that if your
assessment was correct, then Petra may have a viable
prediction scheme.
Also correct but that level was only reached by
allowing all her predictions to be included. When
aftershocks were removed, her score was much lower.
> Inasmuch as no geologist or seismologist has ever
claimed to be able to predict earthquakes on a 94%
accuracy basis, then it is very likely that Petra
cannot either, which implies that there is something
wrong with your calculation.
The 94% was due to her predictions based on probable
aftershocks. When she failed the test she objected
strenuously because I hadn't told her they were not
allowed.
> Iirc, you based your study on a list of predictions
supplied by Petra, and not vetted by you.
Vetted for what? The test program automatically rejects
improper predictions (like aftershocks).
> If that is the case, then your study is invalid.
Regardless, you cannot arbitrarily decide that 94%
accuracy is a flunking score in predicting earthquakes,
inasmuch as nobody else, not even geologists, can come
close to that figure.
True but beside the point.
Roger
I require a 99% level to pass because I don't want to
support false methods. Even at 99% there's a 1% chance
that the results are due to chance.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5911] [5906] [5909] [5917] [5923] [5925] [5927] [5918] [5919] [5922] [5928] [5930] [5924] [5907] [5910] [5929] [5932] [5933] [5934] [5937] [5931] [5935] |
|
5911 |
|
|
Date: June 24, 2015 at 09:40:00
From: mr bopp, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Petra is Correct! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
5906 |
|
|
Date: June 24, 2015 at 07:59:35
From: dib, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Petra is Correct! |
|
|
>> Iirc, you based your study on a list of predictions
supplied by Petra, and not vetted by you.
>Vetted for what? The test program automatically rejects improper predictions (like aftershocks).
To make sure that her list is complete. If there is no way to have that insurance, then your test is invalid in toto.
>> You cannot arbitrarily decide that 94%
accuracy is a flunking score in predicting earthquakes,
inasmuch as nobody else, not even geologists, can come
close to that figure.
>True but beside the point.
Roger, that is an admission of your bias, which also invalidates your study en toto regardless of any results you might obtain. You don't get to arbitrarily determine significance, the statistical results stand on their own. In fact, you have already admitted that your study was meaningless, so your argument about requiring 94-99% is moot.
>I require a 99% level to pass because I don't want to
support false methods.
That statement boggles my mind. In other words, you began studying her predictions with the certainty that she was going to fail, so you rig the statistics to insure that she fails. That's not the way science works.
>Even at 99% there's a 1% chance that the results are due to chance.
Roger, even though that statement is true, it is 99% meaningless in this context. It is an admission that your test was biased and useless before it even began, in which case, you shouldn't have done it. If you want to keep referring to an inaccurate test, then it is up to you to correct the errors in it.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5909] [5917] [5923] [5925] [5927] [5918] [5919] [5922] [5928] [5930] [5924] [5907] [5910] [5929] [5932] [5933] [5934] [5937] [5931] [5935] |
|
5909 |
|
|
Date: June 24, 2015 at 08:23:39
From: Roger Hunter, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Petra is Correct! |
|
|
Dib;
> To make sure that her list is complete. If there is
no way to have that insurance, then your test is
invalid in toto.
No, she posted her predictions in advance.
> Roger, that is an admission of your bias, which
also invalidates your study en toto regardless of any
results you might obtain. You don't get to arbitrarily
determine significance, the statistical results stand
on their own. In fact, you have already admitted that
your study was meaningless, so your argument about
requiring 94-99% is moot.
What are you talking about? The acceptable level of
significance is arbitrary depending on what is being
studied.
> That statement boggles my mind. In other words, you
began studying her predictions with the certainty that
she was going to fail, so you rig the statistics to
insure that she fails. That's not the way science
works.
Where did that come from? I use that level on all
evaluations for the reason I specified below.
>> Even at 99% there's a 1% chance that the results
are due to chance.
> Roger, even though that statement is true, it is
99% meaningless in this context. It is an admission
that your test was biased and useless before it even
began, in which case, you shouldn't have done it. If
you want to keep referring to an inaccurate test, then
it is up to you to correct the errors in it.
You'll have to prove I made any errors first.
Roger
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5917] [5923] [5925] [5927] [5918] [5919] [5922] [5928] [5930] [5924] |
|
5917 |
|
|
Date: June 25, 2015 at 00:16:28
From: dib, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Petra is Correct! |
|
|
Roger, you have shown that you are unqualified to conduct a statistical evaluation of Petra's predictions, so I will quit annoying you.
Petra, based on your lack of scientific training and your pseudo-scientific purview that includes eartone data, I know you could not have passed a legitimate prediction evaluation. If the USGS can't do it, it takes some extreme hubris for you to believe that you can and are doing it. You claim to have associations with people around the world who are making significant progress in earthquake prediction, but it's been years now with no identifiable progress, so it seems to me to be puffery having no pith. Sorry to be so blunt, but it seems to me that you're wasting valuable time that could be very useful if you directed your energy and talents into something more malleable than earthquake prediction.
dib
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5923] [5925] [5927] [5918] [5919] [5922] [5928] [5930] [5924] |
|
5923 |
|
|
Date: June 25, 2015 at 10:04:10
From: Steve, [DNS_Address]
Subject: In defense of Roger and Petra |
|
|
Dib , The Hunter/ Jones method of prediction analysis against the historicity of catalogued quakes is excellent . The bar set at 99% is beyond practical considering the state of the science at this time.
This system does reveal the success or failure in percentages, that is useful information.
This strict analysis has other problems Job has pointed out in the past.
If a quake is one day early or late ... disqualified
1/10th of a Richter below or above prediction. disqualified
1/100th of a degree beyond predicted parameter disqualified, Zero score.
Theoretically if a predictor made 100 otherwise good prediction that failed in any one these small aspects the score would be ZERO.
Weather forecasting would cease to exist if this was applied to meteorology.
There are other methods of evaluation for earthquake prediction to determine to what degree each aspect was met, location being foremost of course.
Lowell Whiteside has a reasonable system of prediction/forecast evaluation.
Petra has in the past shown the results and how her scientific system works.
Time to quit calling actual science pseudoscience.
Petra has accurately predicted many quakes , USGS may with it's billion dollar budget have predicted one maybe.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5925] [5927] |
|
5925 |
|
|
Date: June 25, 2015 at 10:19:51
From: Roger Hunter, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: In defense of Roger and Petra |
|
|
Steve;
> The Hunter/ Jones method of prediction analysis
against the historicity of catalogued quakes is
excellent .
Ah, something we can agree on!
> The bar set at 99% is beyond practical considering
the state of the science at this time.
Oh? Where would you set the bar to weed out chance
success?
> This system does reveal the success or failure in
percentages, that is useful information.
Yes, it does.
> This strict analysis has other problems Job has
pointed out in the past.
> If a quake is one day early or late ... disqualified
> 1/10th of a Richter below or above prediction.
disqualified
> 1/100th of a degree beyond predicted parameter
disqualified, Zero score.
> Theoretically if a predictor made 100 otherwise good
prediction that failed in any one these small aspects
the score would be ZERO.
I test what was predicted.
> Weather forecasting would cease to exist if this was
applied to meteorology.
They forecast in probabilities. Predictions must be
specific to be useful.
> There are other methods of evaluation for earthquake
prediction to determine to what degree each aspect was
met, location being foremost of course.
I could do that too and what it would tell is how close
one was. Matter of fact I had a program to find the
quake closest to a prediction in each parameter. It was
intended as a training aid for predictors but no one
was interested.
> Lowell Whiteside has a reasonable system of
prediction/forecast evaluation.
I wouldn't know. He wouldn't submit any for evaluation.
> Petra has in the past shown the results and how her
scientific system works.
It doesn't.
> Time to quit calling actual science pseudoscience.
Petra has accurately predicted many quakes , USGS may
with it's billion dollar budget have predicted one
maybe.
Petra has also failed many more times than she hits.
Predictions must be correct or no one will pay
attention to them, resulting in loss of life.
Roger
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5927] |
|
5927 |
|
|
Date: June 25, 2015 at 12:19:02
From: Petra, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Redefining Success - An Idea |
|
|
Hi Roger,
Chen I-wan in China included the factor of Usefulness in Prediction and I think it's probably of more value than any other aspect and you may recall the evaluation he prepared for Shan ranked at 22%.
However, I don't believe but one demonstration of anyone's program especially the first try is going to prove much other than to search for errors and determine how they can be avoided in the future and that's why people test programs, so it seems someone of your nature should appreciate that more than most.
One prediction came to mind last evening in recalling making a prediction for the Volcano Islands. I was posting predictions 3 days in advance of the window opening and an M 7.4 event arrived 12 hours early but not inside my prediction window, though the epicenter was but 35kms from my center point.
My thoughts at the time resulted in changing my posted rules to state the warning was active, though the scoring would remain only inside the stated window.
In this, usefulness at that moment needed a fix, but it was timely, but not quite on time, though close in proximity with a maximum radius of 160kms very unlike some folks who use a much wider radius all of the time.
So perhaps scoring by usefulness might be something you should pursue as an added element.
Petra
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
5918 |
|
|
Date: June 25, 2015 at 05:49:21
From: Roger Hunter, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Petra is Correct! |
|
|
DiB;
> Roger, you have shown that you are unqualified to
conduct a statistical evaluation of Petra's
predictions, so I will quit annoying you.
Sorry Don but you have shown you are not qualified to
judge me since you have no idea how my program works.
Maybe it would help if you knew I had the advice and
assistance of Drs Jones and Vidale in recreating the
program I ran at the USGS for two years.
But I agree with you re Petra.
Roger
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5919] [5922] [5928] [5930] [5924] |
|
5919 |
|
|
Date: June 25, 2015 at 08:46:06
From: dib, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Petra is Correct! |
|
|
Roger, face it, your evaluation of Petra's record is defunct. As for your record at the USGS? Why did they halt your evaluation program before you had completed your study?
According to Berkland, you called him up during your evaluation of his predictions and told him that he had scored in the 99th percentile. You also stated that if he made that conversation public, you would deny it. If true, is that an indication of the low level of your honesty here?
Obviously, you must have counted Berkland's predictions that never changed month to month and year to year where he "predicts" the same locations, the same magnitudes, and the same window every month, or you would not have gotten a high score. It is obvious to a scientist that Berkland's method is not prediction, it's just playing the odds. You will probably deny this, but how else do you explain your 99th percentile evaluation of Berkland's "predictions"?
Besides, iirc, you got into the USGS because they wanted a psychological study of predictors, not your evaluations of predictors records. If they wanted a scientific analysis, they wouldn't have hired a psychologist, they would have hired a scientist.
Your problem is that you are not a scientist, and it is clear that you don't think like a scientist.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5922] [5928] [5930] [5924] |
|
5922 |
|
|
Date: June 25, 2015 at 10:01:56
From: Roger Hunter, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Petra is Correct! |
|
|
Steve;
> Roger, face it, your evaluation of Petra's record is
defunct. As for your record at the USGS? Why did they
halt your evaluation program before you had completed
your study?
Bugetary reasons. They wanted the funding to go
somewhere else.
> According to Berkland, you called him up during your
evaluation of his predictions and told him that he had
scored in the 99th percentile. You also stated that if
he made that conversation public, you would deny it. If
true, is that an indication of the low level of your
honesty here?
No. Jim HAD reached that level but it was premature at
that point and he didn't maintain it with further
examination.
> Obviously, you must have counted Berkland's
predictions that never changed month to month and year
to year where he "predicts" the same locations, the
same magnitudes, and the same window every month, or
you would not have gotten a high score. It is obvious
to a scientist that Berkland's method is not
prediction, it's just playing the odds. You will
probably deny this, but how else do you explain your
99th percentile evaluation of Berkland's "predictions"?
Yes, that's all he's doing and yes, I use all his
predictions when evaluating him.
> Besides, iirc, you got into the USGS because they
wanted a psychological study of predictors, not your
evaluations of predictors records. If they wanted a
scientific analysis, they wouldn't have hired a
psychologist, they would have hired a scientist.
LOL! I got into civil service because I qualified as a
geophysicist, not a psychologist. And that was long
before the USGS took over seismology.
> Your problem is that you are not a scientist, and it
is clear that you don't think like a scientist.
How would you know? What are your qualifications?
Roger
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5928] [5930] [5924] |
|
5928 |
|
|
Date: June 25, 2015 at 12:26:06
From: dib, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Final Comment. |
|
|
Steve, your ego, in terms of height above sea level, exceeds the altitude of Mt. Everest, while your actual knowledge level is subterranean.
Roger, I was a registered CA geologist. I think that is good enough to criticize your sloppy methods.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5930] |
|
5930 |
|
|
Date: June 25, 2015 at 14:06:10
From: Roger Hunter, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Final Comment. |
|
|
DiB;
> Roger, I was a registered CA geologist. I think that
is good enough to criticize your sloppy methods.
It would be - if you knew what I was doing and why.
As it is, you're criticizing your imagined details.
Roger
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
5924 |
|
|
Date: June 25, 2015 at 10:18:55
From: Steve, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Roger |
|
|
That was addressed Steve , should be to Dib
I think Dib mentioned years back that he held degrees in Geosciences and Licenses as well. He can correct this if not so.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
5907 |
|
|
Date: June 24, 2015 at 08:16:24
From: Petra, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Petra is Correct! |
|
|
Hi Don,
I think it important once again to stress the prediction program in 2007 was a TEST PROGRAM and that was stated clearly on my web site. In the majority it was comprised of data collected from earthquake catalogs using inter-event time scheduling. The program was built by four students at Cal Poly and there were a few additions including a p-wave prediction for a rare event in Israel, felt by over a million people and our Alum Rock M 5.6 on 10/31/07 based upon hearing a pulsating sound later confirmed to be the same as the data collected by Quake Finder for 13 days prior to the event.
So if you wish to poke holes at quake catalog data that's fine by me because today that $2,000 program turned into an opportunity of a lifetime to vastly improve it with $10,000 funding and benefits I greatly enjoy.
You folks are rather humorous in realizing you leap beyond the bounds of common sense as you can't appreciate science is about testing and as I presented a test program to which I had no idea what would occur I thought it an interesting Net demonstration.
Conversely Tom Jordan with his million bucks for prediction has failed to offer anything to date and he says he has 800 people working on it. Well, they must be the most mentally challenged 800 on the planet.
Ha Ha
Petra
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5910] [5929] [5932] [5933] [5934] [5937] [5931] [5935] |
|
5910 |
|
|
Date: June 24, 2015 at 08:34:34
From: Roger Hunter, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Petra is Correct! |
|
|
Hi Petra;
> I think it important once again to stress the
prediction program in 2007 was a TEST PROGRAM and that
was stated clearly on my web site.
That's correct.
> In the majority it was comprised of data collected
from earthquake catalogs using inter-event time
scheduling. The program was built by four students at
Cal Poly and there were a few additions including a p-
wave prediction for a rare event in Israel, felt by
over a million people and our Alum Rock M 5.6 on
10/31/07 based upon hearing a pulsating sound later
confirmed to be the same as the data collected by Quake
Finder for 13 days prior to the event.
Really? I thought that program came after our test?
> So if you wish to poke holes at quake catalog data
that's fine by me because today that $2,000 program
turned into an opportunity of a lifetime to vastly
improve it with $10,000 funding and benefits I greatly
enjoy.
Ill gotten gains, I'd say.
> You folks are rather humorous in realizing you leap
beyond the bounds of common sense as you can't
appreciate science is about testing and as I presented
a test program to which I had no idea what would occur
I thought it an interesting Net demonstration.
You sure got pissed when if failed though.
> Conversely Tom Jordan with his million bucks for
prediction has failed to offer anything to date and he
says he has 800 people working on it. Well, they must
be the most mentally challenged 800 on the planet.
Haven't heard about that one. Where did Tom get a
million bucks?
Roger
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5929] [5932] [5933] [5934] [5937] [5931] [5935] |
|
5929 |
|
|
Date: June 25, 2015 at 12:40:26
From: Petra, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Petra is Correct! Yes Indeed. |
|
|
Hi Roger,
You have demonstrated many times over your lack of professionalism and it is irritating to realize it was up to me to collect information to change your rulings though while I was supposed to have the opportunity to review your findings but you didn't wait and posted an incorrect score of 92.8% in January 2008 on sci-geo-earthquakes and never corrected it.
As you may recall I moved out of my house on Jan 1st and was knee deep in moving and all that encompasses, so to say "no fair" was all to true though it took 5 years go finally come to a mutual understanding.
Though of the most puzzling things you did it began with sending me an e-mail with Vidale and Jones cc'd and you said my score was at 99% and they started asking you if you had thrown out predictions for one reason or another. They had nothing to do with my work and you knew what to consider as a failed prediction, yet I never had anyone to stand up for me and yet you thought bringing two to your side straight away was ok.
So what, you couldn't stand up for yourself or invite a mutual referee?
However, as to Jordan he received his million bucks from the Keck Foundation and spent it on traveling from one meeting to the next standing on he platform that earthquake prediction was impossible.
And let me restate, at a meeting in Menlo Park in front of 63 scientists he said he would be willing to accept non-scientists into his program and when Roger Musson contacted him and asked him to include me, he told Musson to bugger off as he wasn't an American and had no foothold here. In time Jordan and wife went to Scotland and took Musson and wife to dinner and smoothed out a less than diplomatic situation.
Who woulda thought.... That was a moment to remember!
Petra
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5932] [5933] [5934] [5937] [5931] [5935] |
|
5932 |
|
|
Date: June 25, 2015 at 14:34:26
From: Carly, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Petra is Correct! Yes Indeed. |
|
|
Quick Question Petra. Has Roger Musson ever evaluated any of your
or your ear-tone group's predictions?
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5933] [5934] [5937] |
|
5933 |
|
|
Date: June 26, 2015 at 09:45:14
From: Petra, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Petra is Correct! Yes Indeed. |
|
|
Hi Carly,
No. He not performed any evaluations of any type, though at one point ages ago Musson and Hunter were supposed to do so jointly though due to disagreements over several issues it never happened.
Petra
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5934] [5937] |
|
5934 |
|
|
Date: June 26, 2015 at 09:56:05
From: Roger Hunter, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Petra is Correct! Yes Indeed. |
|
|
Hi Petra;
Where are you posting your predictions these days?
Your website hasn't been updated in quite a while.
Roger
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5937] |
|
5937 |
|
|
Date: June 26, 2015 at 10:39:19
From: Petra, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Petra is Correct! Yes Indeed. |
|
|
Hi Roger,
They go to a private list group though there have been but few due to lack of activity.
Petra
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
5931 |
|
|
Date: June 25, 2015 at 14:21:09
From: Roger Hunter, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Petra is Correct! Yes Indeed. |
|
|
Hi Petra;
> You have demonstrated many times over your lack of
professionalism
In your opinion perhaps.
> and it is irritating to realize it was up to me to
collect information to change your rulings
Such as?
> though while I was supposed to have the opportunity
to review your findings but you didn't wait and posted
an incorrect score of 92.8% in January 2008 on sci-geo-
earthquakes and never corrected it.
Why would I do that?
> As you may recall I moved out of my house on Jan 1st
and was knee deep in moving and all that encompasses,
so to say "no fair" was all to true though it took 5
years go finally come to a mutual understanding.
Don't think I even knew that.
> Though of the most puzzling things you did it began
with sending me an e-mail with Vidale and Jones cc'd
and you said my score was at 99% and they started
asking you if you had thrown out predictions for one
reason or another. They had nothing to do with my work
and you knew what to consider as a failed prediction,
yet I never had anyone to stand up for me and yet you
thought bringing two to your side straight away was ok.
Still do. I knew from what you were doing that you
couldn't legitimately score that high. Vidale and Jones
were asked to help understand what my program was
lacking.
> So what, you couldn't stand up for yourself or invite
a mutual referee?
It had nothing to do with you. I was just keeping you
informed.
> However, as to Jordan he received his million bucks
from the Keck Foundation and spent it on traveling from
one meeting to the next standing on he platform that
earthquake prediction was impossible.
That doesn't sound like a prize for successful
predictions.
> And let me restate, at a meeting in Menlo Park in
front of 63 scientists he said he would be willing to
accept non-scientists into his program and when Roger
Musson contacted him and asked him to include me, he
told Musson to bugger off as he wasn't an American and
had no foothold here. In time Jordan and wife went to
Scotland and took Musson and wife to dinner and
smoothed out a less than diplomatic situation.
I offered to help and received a cordial reply but was
not taken up on it.
Roger
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5935] |
|
5935 |
|
|
Date: June 26, 2015 at 10:13:29
From: Petra, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Inspiration - Light in Dark Places |
|
|
Two quotes I've enjoyed for many years, though sadly I don't recall the name of the authors are:
"We can be the light or the mirror which reflects it."
"How marvelous it is to live inside a mind with interesting pictures on the walls."
We are only limited in our ability to solve problems by our imagination, though grounded in critical thinking and if nothing else I hoped some of the ideas I've pursued in earthquake prediction might kindle the flame of inspiration, yet it seems the great divide has occurred due to laziness on behalf of those who wish to "play" the game of earthquake prediction vs using creativity to advance the process.
Sadly, it's obvious the powers that be and some others do not wish to see earthquake prediction advanced in the United States and it's so glaringly obvious the new program developed through the help of the German's does not include the US.
Your engagements here in dredging old issues is but one more attempt to try to diminish but one simple test program and it seems you could not see the potential for future improvements with the aid of persons far more knowledgeable than I, yet understanding my creativity.
So, let us put this in the past and accept some things will never change, but progress can and will always be achieved in placing light in dark places and no one can halt it, including you.
Life is short, catch the wind!
Petra
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
5896 |
|
|
Date: June 22, 2015 at 15:40:50
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Petra is Correct! |
|
|
Hi dib,
I don't know much about Shan, however Petra has been promoting Whiteside and his solar/earthquake predictions. Problem is there seems to be zero information about this. An extensive search only revealed Petra and Don speaking up for Whiteside on several forums and an article about his failed predicting earthquakes for a fee service. He doesn't seem to have published anything to support his solar/earthquake theory in a journal or even on the internet.
Ouch.. I just got a pain above my eyes. That either means an earthquake in Indonesia or sinus issues due to all this pollen. Personally I'm going to go with the sinus idea and take some allergy meds.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5901] [5903] [5904] |
|
5901 |
|
|
Date: June 23, 2015 at 22:11:28
From: dib, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Petra is Correct! |
|
|
|
After all the conflicts you and I have had on these boards about global warming, you now expect me to forget about them and communicate normally with you? I can't, because you have repeatedly labeled the vast majority of scientists who believe we face a potentially serious problem that threatens our future existence on earth as "ALARMISTS", and that's where you lose all credibility. In any case, I'm not trying to start a war with you, I just don't want to communicate with you.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5903] [5904] |
|
5903 |
|
|
Date: June 23, 2015 at 23:08:46
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Petra is Correct! |
|
|
Hi dib,
> I can't, because you have repeatedly labeled the vast majority of scientists who believe we face a
> potentially serious problem that threatens our future existence on earth as "ALARMISTS", and that's where you
> lose all credibility.
So you misrepresent me then say you don't want to communicate with me. But you couldn't resist responding with those misrepresentations, could you?
LOL same old dib.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[5904] |
|
5904 |
|
|
Date: June 23, 2015 at 23:36:47
From: dib, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Petra is Correct! |
|
|
|
See, now you're flat out lying, and that's another reason I don't want to communicate with you.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
[
Science/Technology ] [ Main Menu ] |