3 ms·

you went only back 6 months and he was off by a few days was to conclude your own bias to begin with...

• jcranmer 3y ago
  I went back 6 months to see his history of predictions to see if he had any merit. If you want to be charitable and call this a hit, that's 1 for 5 in predictions. Looking at the history of M7+ earthquakes in the past 3 months, he had no prediction of occurrence for 2 of the 3 earthquakes that have happened (and this pattern of failing to predict M7+ earthquakes continues further back in 2023, I just don't have the stats in front of me right now). You have provided, to wit, zero evidence of his track record of successful predictions. Not even a (second) example of successful prediction, much less any attempt to actually quantify over any time scale how successful prediction is. And you claim that someone attempting to do the latter is only to conclude my own bias... Some more data: if you go back to the Wayback Machine archive of his webpage (see https://web.archive.org/web/20231001000000*/ssgeos.org https://web.archive.org/web/20231001000000*/ssgeos.org), you can see that there is persistently an earthquake forecast of over 10%, and on frequent basis even 40% or 50%, chance of magnitude 8.5+ earthquakes (right now, it's a 30% chance). The last such earthquake is 2012. Simply put, even on a probabilistic basis, it's an absolute, abject failure of a prediction. FWIW, I should also point that when I tried to drill down to the scientific basis of the predictions from the source, I arrived at pure numerology: https://ssgeos.org/articles/geometry-dynamics-solar-system.htm https://ssgeos.org/articles/geometry-dynamics-solar-system.h.... Not a great look!