Eddie B

Mod Strange was correct !. Statistics from golfsupport .com show lower back problems account for 34% of all injuries. The article also states that an estimated 40,000 golfers a year seek emergency treatment due to injuries from errant golf balls and club heads. Nine fatalities in the US between 2006 - 2016 were related to lightning strikes. And 15,000 injuries a year are reportedly related to collisions with golf carts. Lots of sites promoting health benefits related to golf, but most of these seem to be supported by various golfing agencies... sounds like a dangerous past-time !

Yes I agree, I too do not consider golf a "sport"... waste of electricity when tournaments are aired on TV if you ask me. As we are both impaired by different physical ailments, an ex golfer and a non golfer... we can conclude there are no fitness benefits. yes ?

Yes you could be right, but is not in our nature to sometimes do things that are not good for us, especially if it is something we enjoy. I guess you would have to play a lot of back hand tennis to counter act the affects of golf in that case .

There is also the issue of fitness benefits when playing golf... lots of walking, good back exercise when retrieving those balls, and visual benefits to your eyes as you constantly train them to watch that small white dot in the distance. Not a golfer myself, but as I use a walking sick to get around, suffer from angina and am somewhat short sighted... perhaps I should have taken it up years ago .

To members here, I am a self confessed "country bumpkin", and folks like myself are reputed to know very little about how the brain works. This is me making a joke about myself before others get the opportunity, as quoted in your thread... but did I learn anything from your quote ?. Well no I didn't, because as a child I had a disability in regards my sir name i.e. the weather present in my regional TV news bulletins is called Sarah "Blizzard". My sir name does not relate to an element of the weather, but it did unfortunately scupper any childhood dreams I had of becoming a tyre salesman... I'll leave that to the imagination of the mind . However as a consequence of other children's actions towards me, I poked fun at myself and this left them confused as to how to respond. My thought process was to either take the beatings or take away their ammunition... their thought process was in disarray, so they backed off. So perhaps this is an example of how the mind "does not" work !. I am actually responding here because I do not understand why this "grievance" thread was opened ?. As stated in a "very"early" stage of your thread, the option to run the gauntlet was in your court. This meant "taking the beatings" along the way, which I have recently discovered myself means having your belief, idea or hypothesis tested to the limit. And if you make it to the other side, it means you "may" have something credible and worthy of further investigation. I read your topic, and although I did have to double my usual caffeine intake to keep up, I did try to make an effort to understand what you were saying. I found it interesting in the sense that it portrayed how your mind works (meant as a compliment), but as suggested, you took too long in getting to the point. Which is not criticism by the way, because I have fallen down the same hole as you in this respect. However, what I do not understand is the fact that your thread remains open, you have at least two comments of encouragement from fellow members i.e. "but if you try again, I'm sure you'll be accepted"... yet you decided to take this course !. I also think that you are not doing yourself any favours by naming names, because the description you posted above reads like a police report !. You should consider the advice given because as a newby myself, I seen no aspects of the replies you received directed to your character status, only a sense of frustration at repeated requests for answers. The option to recover from this situation is still open to you, so you still have time to work the problem and "take the beatings" like you would joke about yourself... rather than accept hostility is working against you !. Good luck E B (certified bumpkin)

This is a good point, but would not the ultimate decision to attempt to follow these paths (routes) into the mountains, be based on the individual, or individuals circumstances as to why they would want to attempt this ?. It is true that it would be foolish to attempt such a challenge, if one had not attempted it before... in which case, as you have mentioned you would need guidance from those who had negotiated these routes before . In Bez's case, he has had a belief since childhood that what he seeks in way of an answer, can be found in these mountains. It was not his subject matter that got my attention, it was how he was putting it down in words. He portrayed passion in his belief, and I got the impression there were hints of "dear diary" in there too. However, the subject matter was for the sake of using a better word, was a little "Out There", which should be acceptable to use here if we are to refer to "bumpkins" in the same context. Considering the time period in question (59), he would have had ample time to become a proficient guide himself, or at least do what was required as a hobby to learn the basics. But he has not made that choice, and decided to come to base camp to ask for the assistance of a guide here. However, neither he nor the guide, speak the same language, which would invoke miss interpretations from both parties, and therefore his journey could not proceed further. So now his only options would be to attempt to follow the "unfamiliar" routes himself, or pack his bags and go home !. People with such strong beliefs have trouble accepting or dealing with rejection, especially from text on a screen from strangers. He has gone now, but did he pack his bags and go home... or is he going to do something "foolish" and attempt to follow the wrong route through the mountains alone ?. I my case, I have been studying these mountains for years (astronomy), I know how they formed, what they are made of, and their positional coordinates. But I have never had ambition to traverse the routes myself because there has not been any reason too. However, during my studies, serendipitous calculations reveal that due to erosion, earthquakes and continental drift over millions of years. A yet undiscovered route through the mountain range may exist. And if the calculation is proved to be correct, could reduce the mountain crossing by half, and improve the quality of "life" for the local inhabitants, by cutting trade route times for example. But just like Bez's case, I needed a guide to help me negotiate the terrain, but unlike Baz, I am aware of the dangerous environment I wish to enter. At the last base camp where I was seeking help, I showed them a map of my calculations which led to the possibility of an undiscovered route (Blurted)... they rejected the map data, and I had to leave after 2 posts ! At this base camp, I too had language problems (scientific terminology) with the guide. But from experience gained at the last camp, I elected not to Blurt, and instead show "pictures" of the individual mountains I wished to be taken too, in hopes this form of communication would be acceptable. I made it to the point of "just over the next ridge", when suddenly I could go no further !!. So I am still here at base camp and my options are : spend a couple of years learning the language of the guide, or "find another avenue" to achieve the same objective. A younger man would benefit from learning the language, because he could make a career out of looking for new routes. But as an older man, with different plans for the future I have no ambitions to become a guide, only a need to know if the route exists that the calculations suggest. A hillbilly with imagination might be a dangerous combination, but non of this is intended to be "critical" of your advice. But if the mountain guides are learning these routes from those that have traversed them before. And they in turn learn again from those before, it becomes institutionalised that only guides know the routes through the mountains. When I go to my doctor with an illness, I am not expected to know the basics of anatomy before he will treat my condition. So people like myself and Baz, with strange ideas or beliefs, and of unqualified status naturally assume that we should approach the profession that our strange ideas or belief relates too... which in this case is science. Telling my doctor that he is wrong about my diagnosis, I would expect him to call me a "fool" because I was not qualified to do so. Suggesting to my doctor that I have researched online for possible symptoms related to cause A or cause B, and to ask his opinion of my diagnosis. Would this be regarded as a foolish request, or accepted by the doctor as wrong diagnosis, but I had at least made an effort to try to understand the process !. Thank you E B

Bez... I am not responding here because I can relate to your selected topic, but I am here because I can relate to how you are feeling. I live on the North Yorkshire moors in England. I keep a few chickens to supply eggs for breakfast, and have a stockpile of wood next to my house. So I am in fact the real McCoy (bumpkin). This is a "real" science site, I am a non-academic yet I joined because similarly to you I believed I had a hypothesis based on observation. I shall not go into details of this, but the point is that sometimes these Ideas that we hold in our minds for sometimes many years (as noted), without any kind of conduits in life to express them, can be detrimental to your cause in circumstances like the one you find yourself in here. You are hesitant in your decision to post your topic in the first place, and then you get that OH! feeling because somebody has bothered to respond to you... am I correct ?. The problem then is that you cannot wait to get this stuff out of your head and onto the screen. I have been in this situation before, and for the most part knew what to expect. But I too did not get my idea across because it did not meet the requirements of the discussion subject matter. You believe you have gained interest, and therefore do not take the pressure off for fear of loosing attention. And inevitably due to to much concentration in long periods, slight sleep deprivation due to the days correspondents still on your mind when you retire to bed. And your normal daily duties becoming second to focusing on your posted topic.. am I still right so far ?. As I said, I do not understand many of aspects of what you have posted here, but up to the point you decided to terminate your posts ( I emphasis "up to the point" !!), I see no comments related to character status or any kind of belittlement on the part of these guys here. Because of the symptoms I have referred to above, you start to read into things the wrong way, and take responses at face value instead of giving yourself chance to fully absorb their meaning. I you get a response that in your opinion has caused you annoyance, you should walk your dog in the park for an hour if you have one (park I mean !), and then start again with a fresh outlook... trust me it does make a difference. Unfortunately I did not practice what I am preaching here. I was slow to get to the point of my topic which in text would give the impression of being "Obtuse" I did select a better example of my topic to demonstrate, over a less impressive example which implies "cherry-picking", and a suggestion of posting "anecdotal" information, which on reflection would be a determination based on the combination of my miss interpretation of the questions, and a miss understanding of the topic. Another problem similar to your self was problems with scientific terminology, I felt like I was being picked on at every step, and labelled with these names but in fact I was being "corrected" and the terms used reflected the situation and not a character reference... and this is what they do here, facts, statistics and corrections. I did not see this at the time, but I do now. They have all different categories here, and they also have a lounge area. But I have to admit I did reach points that I wanted to ask for directions to the bullring !. Reading back through my own responses, I have concluded that I was rude to the attending moderator, too quick to respond to fellow members assumptions, and border line disrespectful or prejudicial towards another scientific doctoring. I did not get what I came for, but I did take away more than expected i.e. experience, advice and don't argue with the boss (late apologies here !). If you truly feel you need to put something across, make your point and let them analyse what you have, and if you don't get the result you wanted, look for other avenues. It is always best to finish on mutual terms , than throw in the towel. Otherwise how many more years to you want to continue with this idea in your head, feeling hopeless because nobody will listen ?. I have it on good authority from observing smoke signals from my neighbour across the valley, that hearsay bars will increase 5 cents on the dollar tomorrow, so I had better check my investments... that's a joke by the way, something else that can be interpreted the wrong way, if not directed otherwise. Good luck E B

To show ability to forecast future events would require an overseer to confirm a positive or negative result of trialling the "idea", which would be deemed as prediction. I have been a little busy in speculations to look around the site properly, so could you advise me if you have a section or category for predictive experimentation ?. Unaccredited definition - not recognised as having attained an acceptable standard (Oxford Dictionary). I'm sorry, my terminology and communication skills seem to have been questionable lately. I had to look online to determine what an obtuse cherry-picker posting anecdotal information was... but no harm done, I can live with that ! Thank you my friend E B

Thank you so much, my appreciation goes out to both of you. If could impose further, I would like to present a small calculation and ask if the result could be deemed as unfalsifiable or falsifiable by other means. I believe you are familiar with the concept of my "idea", so I shall not expand on this further. I have learned on the prediction circuit that the calculated odds of a prediction being successful, works in your favour depending on the region you have selected. Meaning I would have a greater chance of securing a positive result by predicting an event in Indonesia, in preference to Madagascar. Average rate of 6+ occurrence in Indonesia, once every 3 months compared to "no" similar magnitude events in Madagascar from post 2004. So the odds for securing a 6+ result in Madagascar would be extremely high. If I now compare this example to my "idea", and relate this too one lunar cycle as suggested by a fellow member, or the one relevant month the lunar calculation relates too. This would be April (just gone), and the calculation relates to the moons perigee position on the 16th of this relevant month. I selected this particular moon event because it had already been represented in my closed thread. My calculations determined by online tools determined that the moon would be at its closest point to Earth between time periods 21:24:22 UTC - 22:50:45 UTC at a distance of 357,829 km's. I have been referring to these times as "prime focus" in reference to my magnifying glass analogy. They represent the first second the moon reaches this distance, and the last second before the moon alters distance. I shall refer to these positions as "stop / start" until I am advised otherwise. As I have just noted, my prediction calculations would have to be more precise. So with this in mind, the subject times here will be Judged as 21:24 UTC - 22:50 UTC = 2 minutes. If I calculate the odds that one of these two times related to stop / start perigee, would be associated with a pre destined seismic location, this should calculate as event-month-stop / start. April 43,200 minutes = odds 43,200/2 or 21,600/1 The unaccredited result relates to coordinates 82'49'W - 8'37'N on the Panama-Costa Rica border. This location experienced an M 6.1 event, approximately 44 hours prior to this post. It occurred 19 days after perigee took place, and the subject time related to to this event was "stop"... it was moonrise on this epicentre at 21:24 UTC 16th April. This happens every month related to differing solar / lunar combinations etc. This result would be included on my "perigee" spreadsheet as contributing to statistical evidence. However, I would naturally assume that I would be asked how I formulated the calculation to secure this result... and would be obliged to direct enquiries to the online tools. If my calculation was verified as being correct, then this "precise" calculation had a 43,200 / 2 chance of determining the correct pre destined location. However it is not that impressive if you consider it was also moonrise at this time over half the world, so you would need to triangulate position. I do have the formula for this, but did not get the chance to demonstrate its abilities. As I have demonstrated, this calculation is "past-tense", the event has occurred and the calculation relates to the event. Therefore there are years of unaccredited statistical evidence that could be calculated and presented for verification... would calculation "past-tense be regarded as statistical evidence ?. And if I relate back to my original question, what part of this methodology could I attempt to falsify ? My sincere thanks again... E B

I have been corresponding with fellow members of this community, in relation to a hypothesis posed based on observation. This has unfortunately been closed to further replies, because it does not meet two of the requirements for speculations discussions. The first point relates to the lack of statistical evidence, of which I am sure I will be able to compile, thanks to suggestions and guidance from a fellow member. However, the second point is directed at being able to "falsify" my data. I have been having some problems during my correspondents, with the use of scientific terminology. I am a non academic which I pointed out several times during my correspondents, but this has now been addressed with advice given not to use terminology I do not understand. So I now stand with a hypothesis down graded to "idea" which I can no longer describe using "big words". This has left me a little confused regarding the meaning of falsify. Does this mean what I believe it means e.g. falsifying the results of pharmaceutical trials, so they are passed for general release. Or is there a scientific terminology, which gives different meant to the same word... and I am unaware of this ? Secondly, if my first suggestion is correct, how would I go about falsifying my data so that it would meet the requirements of speculations discussions ?. My posts reached the 16 mark, which was 14 more than I had anticipated... so this my be deemed a good statistic for the life expectancy of an "idea" on this site ! Thank you E B

You are again correct, I am not competent with precise terminology in science... do you have a solution ?. I was having a conversation with a fellow member in the public arena. My words were by way of an apology, and I did not expect third party intervention, as the subject matter was not related to my Hypothesis. If my wording was wrong, yet said member was still able to ascertain its meaning... then wrongful use of words in this case still achieved the same result. If I actually had a UFO in my back yard, in your opinion what would constitute "credible evidence" to the extent that you would make the effort to view it for yourself ?. I agree with your comment that the use of the word "analogy" in reference to unproven UFO existence is wrong. But the object of the statement was to signify disbelief of statement from an uneducated non academic individual with little experience in using correct scientific terminology in online correspondents... a hypothesis related statement using the wrong context, but did it still give understandable meaning to my statement ? I have not clearly stated what I have found until today. There is no "statistical evidence" to support my assertion, only observational data that relates to descriptions posted previously. More significant date was going to be forthcoming to support my disclosure and findings, shortly after disclosure of my hypothesis. But requested non intervention of fellow members before data and analysis could be uploaded and explained was ignored due to receiving multiple questions. So my evidence will not be forthcoming until appropriate time is available to upload the data. Natural was in reference to repeating sequence of events related to the orbital motions of the sun, moon and Earth. We experience a Full Moon phase every month, is this a naturally occurring event or an orbital phenomena ?. Selection is by due process of combination or alignment of said celestial bodies and related consequences described in the hypothesis description. Natural selection is a common phrase used by academia and non academia alike. I made a poor attempt at conforming to repeated remarks regarding my miss use of correct scientific terminology. My attempts are not appreciated, so this brings me back to the first sentence of this post !. Lunar or solar threshold is a term I coined myself to describe boundaries in the maps I have been posting. I will have to refer to other sources to find the correct terminology before continuing description. I have not been able to get past my wrong context UFO analogy to get the correct terminology from the scientific community. I was hoping to address this issue in a previous post here, requesting help with clarity of threshold contacts in respect of time... but the request did not receive any replies. Prime focus time is again a self coin term to describe lunar positioning, I shall again have to consult other sources to find the correct terminology before continuing description. I would not be able to falsify my idea... the data I am or have been suppling is available online for anyone wishing to verify my claims. I have posted the same maps you would find yourself online, so in my opinion I cannot see how the readily available magnitudes, coordinates and times could be falsified. The object of the hypothesis is to show how solar / lunar combinations relate to post seismic locations. And the methodology employed to relate to the past, must also be able to relate to the future. Why would you want to falsify the data if the end result was to locate potentially lethal pre-seismic events ?. UV connection... I have already responded to this query in an earlier post !. Writing related to alternative goal... I do not understand the thought process behind this comment. As far as I am aware, I have answered every question posed to me. I have posted examples of my hypothesis with descriptions that do not appear to be eligible. And I have tried to be pleasant, polite, witty and apologetic where necessary. Could you please point out which abstracts gives you the impression there is another agenda... and preferable any abstracts that do not include scientific terminology ?. Magnetism a major part... In all the maps I have posted, I have described how sunrise / sunset etc (thresholds !) relate to a specific pre-seismic location during orbital combination or alignments. I have further described how pre and post seismic locations correlate to each other via the thresholds at the same time, within a short period of seismic occurrence at site A or site B. The "major" part of my hypothesis to this point in time has been focused on these correlations. By your own admission, you claim not to have understood the processes I have been describing. Yet you have come to your own conclusion that "magnetism" is a prime element in this hypothesis. The "magnetic field lines have no correlating aspects in respect of connecting one seismic location to another. They have nothing to do with orbital combinations or alignments. They are only included as the end result of the said combinations or alignments. If I am claiming that the end result of these combinations are leaving a footprint in Earths magnetic field, it means for the pre destined location to retain influence long after the combination has passed, magnetic integrity must have been altered in order to attract further seismic correlations... similar to how we perceive the formation of a sun spot on the solar surface. Footprint is also likely to be the wrong scientific terminology, so please don't envision this as something the size of Manhattan Island with five smaller islands of its Northern shore !. When the sun and the moon are in the right " orbital combination or alignment"... "Solar influences" via the thresholds (first light, last light, moonrise / set etc) proceed to mark a pre destined location on Earth, which may take as long as 3 months before an earthquake occurs at this spot. It does not cause an immediate earthquake. Non of the combinations or alignments cause an immediate earthquake. Let me correct this factually, I know of one M 6.7 event in the Jan Mayen region of September last year North of Iceland, that occurred at the exact moment of alignment On 16th April between time periods 21:24:22 UTC - 22:50:45 UTC, the moon was at perigee. If the moon reached perigee every month as it does do, would this not be deemed a naturally occurring event ?. If the first time of 21:24:22 UTC was the point in time that related to marking a pre destined location on Earth in relation to this hypothesis, would this then not be considered as natural selection, which only works during naturally occurring events ?. Thank you for your questions, please note that I have "also" asked questions. If my communication skills are in question rather than my hypothesis, then it seems only right and proper for me to be afforded a response before further communication can continue !. Thank you E B

As we have mentioned previously, the moon averages one apogee every month (furthest point from Earth), and one perigee every month (closest point to Earth). Also on a monthly basis, it reaches its furthest North and South latitudes which it incurs remaining for long periods on said latitudes relative to Earth. We also have first and last quarter phases which result in the disputed geocentric positions. And a couple of other positions that may confuse the issue further at this point should they be disclosed. These juxtapositions that "you" originally included in this debate, occur every month as previously mentioned. If I am making the point that significant earthquakes are being pre selected through "natural" selection i.e. a positional combination like perigee for instance. Then the positional combinations which occur every month, are "natural" events connected to the sun, moon and Earths orbital rhythm... and this process is likened to an "Earth clock". Thanks for getting back to me... meaning sincerely.

From the time I passed my driving test until the year 2015, I considered myself to be a moderately good considerate driver. I was no Reginald like the guy in the safety TV ad's of the 70's, nor was I a Lewis Hamilton. In September 2015 whilst driving through a small North England village near my home. I negotiated a sharp bend in the road next to a T junction. whilst executing this manoeuvre, I inadvertently activated my horn by crossing my arm on the wheel. Five minutes later and further down the road, I noted a large 4x4 following me and trying to get my attention with his lights. Thinking my vehicle was sporting an unseen problem I pulled over. The guy with the 4x4 had been waiting at the T junction, and took it that my horn activation was my displeasure that he was slightly over the stop line. What ensued was a 45 minute road rage engagement where I was physically assaulted… and this was worrying and embarrassing for me because my family was also in my vehicle. The point of this particular episode, is that peoples perception of actions or in this case "words" can be taken in different ways, to what the original action or words were meant to signify... weather it be unintentional or meaningful. The little background info I have posted here, gives an indication that I am familiar with the prediction circuit, both official programs and the entertainment scene. I have demonstrated that I do take advice, and I have taken advice from past associations.. always use an "honest scientific approach" etc. Official programs au castrated by universities or USGS affiliated programs, require strict guidelines in relation to the formulation of a forecast. All results are entered on a spreadsheet for statistical analysis. Simply put, you could secure a successful prediction for an M 6.5 with published EMSC listing, but as I pointed out previously, the same event published as M 6.4 by USGS, resulted with a negative mark on the spreadsheet, because everything centres around the USGS. If this occurred 20 fold over the course of a solar year, the percentage rate is not going to very impressive, and the results will warrant no further investigation. This also applied if the event occurred outside the posted margin of error... even by a few kilometres. My Perigee examples above were a reflection of this combination of trying to be honest and including stipulations that had undoubtedly slowed my progress through statistical analysis. I am under no illusion that we are going to undertake anything official here and "truly" appreciate any advice given. I was getting the impression that you were a numbers guy, a fellow countryman and up to this point, an ally. This meant to me that you would have an appreciation of the mathematical task I am undertaking. So I was making light of the fact that statistical analysis is my "bug bearer" but I would concede to again follow your advice... I am a little old fashioned, but I perceived the addition of a "smiley" to represent humour. My regrets if this is of no further concern, but I was up until the early hours configuring "spreadsheets" to encompass the different solar / lunar combinations. It is now 2019, I drive a BIGGER 4x4, I am working on being the next Lewis Hamilton, and I shout profanities at other drivers through my window. What I have learned from my experience, is the sad fact that you can do this and nobody blinks an eye... because everybody accepts it as being the norm !. This science forum is very informative regarding topics you have never considered looking into. Only two weeks ago, I picked up some great tips related to "kitchen counter tops", as I am currently renovating my own kitchen (a thank you to those concerned). So I guess another tip I have acquired during my time here is "no inclusion of humour during topical scientific debate"... and my apologies if I gave miss representation. Oh! to be obtuse... yes I can see how you would come to this conclusion. If someone was to hypothesis a formula to combat the flu virus within 24 hours, would this pose a threat to medical science if it was proven to be credible ?. Or a formula for dissolving plastic in the oceans, which would not harm marine life, would this be deemed a threat to anyone ?. I don't think they would because they would be seen as advances in improving our quality of life, and the well being of our planet. But in my case, my hypothesis is challenging decades of conventional belief related to the process of seismic activity... a doctrine that is already well established within the seismic community. It is a hypothesis that if proved credible, would ultimately save lives. And therefore be accepted in the same manner as the two previous hypothetical examples. The hypothesis relates to earthquakes, so from the point of view as a non academic, the obvious direction to take would be to approach the seismic community, and explain what your own findings have reviled. However, do you think 30 - 40 year seasoned veteran seismologists, who have spent their whole careers following the accepted belief of stress related occurrence, are going to give you the time of day. Well no they are NOT, and I have had to find this out the hard way on several occasions. This one reason why I commented to fellow member "Intrigued", that I am faced with a situation similar to the analogy of finding a "genuine" UFO parked in my back yard. Being a rational human being and knowing how the world works, how would you report this and to whom ?. You could not just blurt it out to anyone because this would be a sure way of receiving your one way ticket to a padded room with a nice view. So you would have to determine methodology for a longer time period, to give people a chance to absorb the information you provide them, and in doing so soften the blow so to speak, to the reality that a genuine UFO is parked in the back yard. Therefore I am mindful that I may have something that contradicts accepted belief. I don't know you or any other members I have been corresponding with since I joined this forum. However, monitoring you guys prior to joining, determined my decision not to "Blurt", so that I may get the chance to lay the foundations of my hypothesis. I think the decision to "blurt" would have been my demise after two post !. So to my hypothesis... "Significant seismic events are pre destined to occur through natural selection, and exhibit a self propagation process by means of near UV connection, related to the sun, and gravitational influences of the moon. I tried to title this in a manner befitting scientific terminology, because I believed this was expected after previous "correctional" correspondents. But I guess not, because nobody seems to be able to understand this terminology either. Due to the process of specific sun, moon, Earth combinations or alignments. The prime focus of these combinations / alignments are influencing magnetic field lines in regions on the Earths surface where the solar / lunar thresholds reside at the prime focus time. Simply put, these combinations are leaving a footprint in Earths magnetic field, and this can occur up to 3 months prior to any accossiated seismic activity being detected. This pre destined location is then further infused with more pre seismic energy as future events occur. This happens at the same time the solar / lunar thresholds are located on the original footprint. It is then within a short period before occurrence that post seismic influences contribute to an impending earthquake taking place. The severity or magnitude of the earthquake is determined by the significance of the original solar / lunar combination. Once occurrence has taken place, the affected location then becomes part of the post seismic grid, and will ultimately connect to another pre seismic location in the near future... and the process will begin again. The inclusion of UV connection and gravitational influences are speculative, not within my field of expertise and therefore could not support such inclusions at this point. However, I have tried to hint at my beliefs with inclusions of analogies in previous posts. I have observed these scenarios for many years as described above, but I have come to no final conclusion of which elements are responsible for the procurement and final outcome of said scenarios. I shall post a final theoretical example within a couple of hours of this post time, so please save any responses until said example can be sufficiently analysed. Thank you E B

Thank you again for your questions gentlemen... I shall try to respond to these in the same order I received them. Calculating percentage of these "Juxtapositions" would be possible over a solar year. However, an acceptable "margin of error" would have to be negotiated with whom ever was willing to take on the momentous task of verification. A margin of error would be required to account for the variables, namely differing data on different websites related to the "same" occurrence or position i.e. On 1st February 16:14:12 UTC, a significant earthquake occurred in Chiapas Mexico. EMSC published this event as an M 6.6... USGS posted the same event as M 6.7. EMSC further published the coordinates of this event as 92'12'W - 14'51'N... USGS coordinates were posted as 92'27'W - 14'40'N. There seems relatively little difference in the numbers, but on the ground so to speak, this difference equates to 34 km's, or a 2 minute difference in solar / lunar threshold times. I am calculating thresholds at minute precision, and therefore reliant on what I source off the internet... so where did the actual earthquake occur ? Then there is the problem of conflicting data on the "same" website. I shall apologies before hand here, because I shall have to bore you with yet more maps to demonstrate this issue. The maps may also help in contributing to further questions. On 16th April between time periods 21:24:22 UTC - 22:50:45 UTC, the moon was at perigee (closest point in its orbit to Earth) at a distance of 357,829 km's. I determined this data using the online calculator at www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/earth . The time periods relate to the first second the moon reached this distance, and the last second before it started moving off again... according to the stated website !. However, the same website publishes perigee and apogee tables for a given year. In this case the table shows perigee occurred at 22:03 UTC 16th April at a distance of 364,208 km's. This map represents the latter time period of 22:50:45 UTC. Sunset occurred at 22:52 UTC on this day, on coordinates 75'06'W - 15'46'S pre-seismic location of the previously mentioned M 5.8 offshore Central Peru. A one minute +/- margin would secure this juxtaposition as a percentage hit... or I could "cherry-pick" between the differing coordinates, published by the aforementioned seismic websites related to this event, to balance percentage in my favour ! This map represents 19:08:01 UTC 19th March... its purpose is explained with the following map. On 19th March between time periods 19:08:01 UTC - 20:24:58 UTC, the moon was at perigee at a distance of 353,000 km's... as I again stress, data results according to the aforementioned fourmilab website. In the first map at 19:08:01 UTC, first light was located on coordinates 146'26'E - 6'58'S, location of the pre-seismic M 7.2 Eastern Papua New Guinea epicentre. This second map representing 20:24:58 UTC, is void of any threshold correlations up to the end of April... but it does show that the sun was located on coordinates "124'18'W" - 0'25'S at this time !! If the online results are correct, it would mean this configuration occurred 7 weeks before the actual related M7.2 Eastern New Guinea event took place. If this was submitted for percentage verification, what time scale would these juxtapositions have to conform to if one of the functions of this hypothesis was the determination of "pre"-seismic locations ?. This final perigee example relates to 19th February between time periods 07:59:07 UTC - 10:02:13 UTC, the moon during this period remained at a distance of 350,386 km's. Compare this to the moons perigee in April, it equates to a close in distance of 7,443 km's, or approx 4.3 times the lunar radius closer to Earth. This map represents the latter period of 10:02:13 UTC, it too is void of solar related threshold correlations up to the end of March. However, according to www.suncalc.net , first light occurred at 10:05 UTC on coordinates 76'58'W - 2'07'S location of the pre-seismic M 7.5 Peru-Ecuador Border epicentre, which occurred 3 days later on 22nd Feb 10:17:22 UTC. A one minute +/- margin of error in this case would class this time difference as void, even thought this perigee is likely correlated to this location, due to the moons close proximity and the time period before occurrence. This is the equivalent moon map for 10:02:13 UTC 19th February. What is not very disenable in this image, is the fact that the solar / lunar thresholds converge Southwest of Tasmania at this time. The lunar threshold was located on coordinates 139'27'E - 51'08'S, this is the location of pre-seismic M 6.5 West Indian Antarctic Ridge event of 18th April. The map also shows sunset on coordinates 125'03'E - 6'51'S, location of the M 6.3 Banda Sea, Indonesia event of 4th April. Again, the question of time scale of conformity is an issue !. Studiot… I will take your suggestions under advisement, if stipulations can be agreed... and you are willing to verify my results . This moon map represents 02:41 UTC 12th May, and believe this is the (forgive me) geocentric positional configuration Swansont is referring too. The configuration is representative of similar phenomena to what has been depicted in the perigee maps. A magnitude 7.2 has just occurred several days earlier at the point the lunar threshold transits Papua New Guinea. The moon was located on 124'38'W at this time. It is an unusual configuration that correlates to the Papua New Guinea scenario of 4th May. And as I have also shown above, it correlates to the moons perigee period of 19th March. It did not cause an earthquake, but if the hypothetical scenario continues as I believe it will, it is possible that a future magnitude 6+ event will occur on one of these threshold lines in this map, within the next lunar cycle period !. This positioning does not happen every day, this particular Juxtaposition occurs once a month or approximately every 15 days if you reverse the threshold positions. The moon from the perspective of Earth moves at a greater rate in the sky compared to the sun, so it moves easterly towards the sun for New Moon, and continues easterly until it is opposite the sun relative to Earth for Full Moon. I recall mention that this was not your forte, and I can relate to this. Some 20 years ago, I believed magnitude 6+ earthquakes were very rare events, and this is because I only took note of them when they appeared in the news bulletins on TV. Earthquakes of Mag 6+ occur on average once a week, 7+ once every 3 months, 8+ once a year and 9+ once every 3 - 5 years. The sad truth is, significant earthquakes only appear in the news if they incur fatalities. Without resorting too astronomy 101, may I suggest that you load www.timeanddate.com for the maps shown above. and use the time tabs at the bottom of the map to move forward or back in time... you will see simulations of what I have described above. Okay, considering the nature of the data I have been posting, my hypothesis is aimed at the possibility that significant seismic events are pre destined to occur, through "natural" selection. And exhibit a self propagation process by means of near UV connection, related to the sun, and gravitational influences of the moon. I believe this to be two sentences as requested... have I now secured myself a one way ticket to a padded room with a nice view ?. Apologies for the late response, Sunday is "family time" and I had to morph myself back into the real world for a while !. Thank you E B

My apologies Swansont, I am non academic so you will have to forgive my miss use of scientific terminology. I have on two occasions made my willingness for guidance clear to this community, to better advance myself on this forum. This has already been taken up by a fellow member, regarding my grammar and selective postings... and my appreciation has been given. The term geocentric was afforded me in a correspondence from a professor at a local university, in relation to the sun or moons position to a specific point or circumstance relative to Earth... however, he also included the word "preposterous" in the same paragraph. The data we are referring to relates to 02:41 UTC 12th May, a simpler explanation to my miss interpreted terminology would be to say; at this time and date, the moon was located on coordinates 124'38'W - 16'48'N relative to Earth. At the same time at this location, it was sunset... so the central point of the moon was on these exact coordinates, as the last point of the sun disappeared below the horizon. This scenario was also played out from the suns position in relation to the rising lunar threshold at the same time. If I sourced the coordinates of an earthquake from reliable seismic related websites like the USGS or EMSC, and I wanted to know what time sunrise or moonset had occurred at my chosen epicentre on a given day... how would I find the information I require ?. If I wanted to know when the sun and moon would next be sharing the same latitude relative to Earth, and for how long this period would last to the "second". Would this be readily available online somewhere, or would I have to find a suitable online tool to preform my own calculations ?. I have posted information related to several websites I use to come to the conclusions in reference to the maps I have posted here. The information is also provided for those who wish to verify my findings... which I sincerely doubt anyone will because this is very labour intensive. The definition of "Anecdotal" is supplying information that is not based on facts or careful study... if I am getting moonrise times for Papua New Guinea off the internet like everyone else, how does this term apply here ? In an earlier post, it was correctly pointed out to me by Studiot that I was submitting material that "may be" specifically chosen to help my cause in relation to advancing my hypothesis. This particular point was taken as indirect guidance towards future submissions of related information. The information I posted today relates to circumstances prior to a magnitude 7.2 occurring in Eastern Papua New Guinea, and how this relates to longitude 124'W. The first information I submitted on this forum also related to longitude 124'W, so as a point of correlating interest, I pointed out comparisons between the two scenarios. Between the Philippines scenario of 6th April and the Papua New Guinea scenario of 6th May, there had not been any further magnitude 6+ correlations with longitude 124'W. This too could be verified using the websites I have previously given guidance too... but again very labour intensive. This post was opened specifically to compare similarities with a previously posted scenario, and I made these intentions "clear" in my first paragraph... so forgive me because I do not understand how this can be categorised as "cherry-picking"? My hypothesis is based on observation, and you are quite correct that I am not giving it a clear definition, This is because I am having trouble myself understanding how these alleged correlations are occurring within short periods of earthquakes occurring. Let me give an example; I have pointed out that an M 6.1 event occurred in Kyushu, Japan on 9th May on coordinates 131'51'E - 31'46'N. If you checked the various solar / lunar thresholds (sunrise, sunset, moonrise moonset etc) related to this location, on the day it occurred... would any of these thresholds make contact with any other post seismic locations. In this particular case, I discovered when sunrise occurred at this location on this day at 09:58 UTC, it was also first light on coordinates 75'06'W - 15'46'S Offshore Central Peru. This Peruvian location experienced an M 5.8 event on the 8th May (the day before). Therefore there is correlation of two seismic locations via the solar thresholds, at the exact same time. Depending on latitude, this time correlation only exists for a short period of 2 - 3 days, because the suns northward or southward travel alters the threshold angles. This correlation would not occur again for approximately 6 months... but it did occur within 24 hours of these notable seismic events on different sides of the world. So for the sake of a better explanation, I observed a coincidental occurrence that does not happen every week or month, but only twice a year. If I expand on this further, I have already mentioned that a similar threshold check was carried out on the M 7.2 Eastern Papua New Guinea epicentre. And this reviled that moonrise at this location on the day of its occurrence was at 22:03 UTC, which also coincided with moonrise on the M 6.1 Kyushu, Japan epicentre... 3 days before this one occurred. The question is how often does moonrise occur exactly on these two seismic locations at the same time ?. Here is a final example that brings us full circle and hopefully shed some light on how these correlations fit together. When the stated M 5.8 Peruvian event occurred on 8th May at 13:47:19 UTC, the last light threshold was located on coordinates 94'34'E - 22'28'N Arunchal Pradesh, India. This location experienced an M 5.9 event on 23rd April at 20:15:50 UTC. If you check this time and date using one of the aforementioned websites I have noted, you will see that it was sunrise on the pre-seismic M 7.2 Eastern Papua New Guinea epicentre, and the sun was located on longitude 124'22'W !!. An analogy I would quote is that the correlations I observe, are behaving similarly to a circuit board. Energy or information is transferred from A to B via the tracks, and at certain points these tracks will interconnect with each other... just like a circuit board!. However, I am not implying some kind of pre - post seismic energy is transferring between two points at this time. The correlations in all examples relate to the appearance or termination of solar / lunar contact (sunlight, moonlight), so as a non scientist I have made the assumption that long wavelength frequencies in the visible spectrum may be focusing short bursts of energy on stressed points within the lithosphere. As a child, I experimented with scorching a hole in a piece of paper, using a magnifying glass and light from the sun... like I am sure many here have done. So my analogy would be; if it took approx 90 seconds to scorch a hole in a piece of paper, what would the effects be if you only focused the sun light on the same spot for 15 seconds every 3 days !. Would the result eventually be the same as the short period, and if so, with each 15 second burst would the paper slowly lose its structural integrate. Would a final burst breach the paper in less than the 15 seconds allocated. If I applied this analogy to the Earth, I would need a rather large magnifying glass. On the 9th May at 04:02:57 UTC, the moon will reach its highest northern latitude for this month relative to Earth at 22'15'N. It will remain at this latitude until 07:30:06 UTC, it will continue to move laterally from our perspective on Earth, but it will not start moving South from this latitude position until the last second stated. Kind of like holding a magnifying glass on the same line for 3.5 hours , or in the cases of apogee and perigee an average of 1.5 hours at the same distance! I once read an article about Einstein rings, and how gravity from a foreground galaxy could bend light, and therefore reveal galaxies that would normal been obstructed (but don't quote me on this literally). So another non scientist assumption would be that gravity may influence light closer to home ! I do not think my hypothesis can be quantified through statistical analysis, because each occurrence is different due to the suns North / South time frame. Just as I have tried to explain in the examples above, I analyse each event closely and when I find interconnecting thresholds (like the circuit board) I predict on the coordinates where they meet. I hope I have given a clearer interpretation of my hypothesis, and I can accept my casual assumptions will be wrong because "I am not a scientist". I believe this will be a hard sell without independent verification... or a 6+ event occurring in Ferndale, California on 124'W..:) I am of course speculating and appreciate your responses, and the inclusion of "tidal effects" which have only been mentioned by Mod "Strange" after my first post related to this topic... but without a definitive direction, should not be ruled out. Thank you E B

My apologies... I meant to include the following in my last post. As the date stamp shows, this ACE satellite magnetic data was captured on the same day as the M 7.2 event occurred in Eastern Papua New Guinea... the focal point of this image occurred at 09:23 UTC. This moon map represents 09:23 UTC 6th May. At this time, it was sunrise on coordinates 27'28'W - 56'18'S South Sandwich Islands (M 6.1 22nd April), and the moon was located on longitude 57'09'E. On 29th April, an M 6.2 event occurred on the Carlsberg ridge on coordinates 57'16'E - 10'51'N. The main focus of this map is the location of the lunar threshold in respect of the pre-seismic M 7.2 Eastern New Guinea epicentre, which occurred less than 12 hours later. This sun map represents 08:07 UTC 6th May. This time is 1 hour 16 minutes prior to the aspect change recorded in the ACE image. It represents sunset on the pre-seismic M 7.2 Eastern Papua New Guinea epicentre. The sun was located on longitude 57'25'E, and therefore solar noon on the previously stated M 6.2 Carlsberg ridge epicentre. Lastly, this sun map represents 18:45 UTC 11th May. During time periods 18:37:25 UTC - 18:44:45 UTC, the sun and moon shared the same lateral positions on 17'57'N. It was first light on coordinates 131'51'E - 31'46'N M 6.1 Kyushu, Japan at the represented later time !. Apologies that aforementioned events are not disenable in the included maps, but times and locations can be verified using the websites previously posted on. Thank you E B

Studiot… I have made another observation related to the recent M 7.2 event Northwest of Bulolo, Eastern Papua new Guinea, which occurred on 6th May 21:19:35 UTC. It exhibits similarities to the 6th April Philippines scenario I posted on previously. It may still not imply correlation, but just like the Philippines scenario, this event also seems to have relations with 124'W longitude. Too recap… on 6th April between time periods 10:59:35 UTC - 11:04:54 UTC, the sun and moon shared the same lateral position of 6'26'N. At 11:01 UTC ( during this period) last light occurred on coordinates 125'10'E - 11'50'N Samar, Philippines... epicentre of the M 6.4 event that occurred here on 23rd April. This time also coincided with moonset on coordinates 120'29'E - 14'55'N Luzon, Philippines (M 6.1 22nd April), and coordinates 121'41'E - 23'58'N Hualian, Taiwan (M 6.1 18th April). At 20:20 UTC 6th April, a significant aspect change was recorded in the ACE satellite magnetic data display (posted above). This time coincided with first light on coordinates 125'10E - 11'50'N Samar, Philippines... and the sun was located on longitude 124'24'W at this time. On 4th May between time periods 19:51:35 UTC - 19:54:34 UTC, the New Moon phase occurred. Approximately 20 minutes later at 20:15 UTC ( depicted in map) both rising solar / lunar thresholds were located on coordinates 146'26'E - 6'58'S, pre-seismic epicentre of the M 7.2 Eastern New Guinea event. Longitude of the sun and moon at this time was 124'33'W / 124'22'W respectively. As stated previously, this event occurred on 6th May, and interestingly another solar / lunar alignment occurred on this day. During time periods 04:05:56 UTC - 04:12:50 UTC, the sun and moon shared the same lateral position of 16'27'N. However,this does not correlate to the event in question, but may hold intrigue for occurring exactly one month later, on the same day as a magnitude 7.2 occurrence. It may also be interesting to note that both last light and moonset occurred on this 7.2 epicentre, at 09:17 UTC on this day, approx. 12 hours before the event occurred. Whilst looking ahead, I noticed this interesting configuration. This map represents 02:41 UTC 12th May, positions of the sun and moon at this time will be 139'21'E - 18'02'N and "124'38'W" - 16'48'N respectively. Online websites including www.mooncalc.org and www.sunrisesunsetmap.com confirm that the sun and moon will be geocentric on their opposing thresholds. The interesting point here is that the rising lunar threshold will be located on the M 7.2 Eastern New Guinea epicentre ! I should add that at the time of this post, sunrisesunsetmap.com is currently displaying a "certificate error" warning... the site is still active, but view at one's own risk !. Another aspect of my hypothesis I have been investigating, focuses on the possibility of relationships between pre and post seismic locations. This is primarily based on possible threshold correlations from one seismic location "on the day" of occurrence, too a second location prior to occurrence. For instance, the M 7.2 Eastern Papua New Guinea event occurred at 21:19:35 UTC on 6th May. At 22:03 UTC (43 minutes later) it was moonrise at this location, however, it was also moonrise at this time on coordinates 131'51'E - 31'46'N Kyushu, Japan. This location experienced a magnitude 6.1 event 3 days later at 23:48:41 UTC 9th May. Any possible solar correlations are usually only valid for 2 -3 days depending on lateral positions relative to Earth... lunar correlations are just one offs. Does anybody believe that these scenarios are demonstrating a credible pattern of events here... or am I still chasing coincidence ? Thank you E B

A little help with clarification please... This is a minor concern of mine that I mentioned previously, relating to conflicting data between websites. This is a "moon light world map" generated by www.timeanddate.com , it is an example of the kind of sources I use to determine positional calculations. This particular map represents 19:52 UTC 12th April. The focus of this map is the island of Mauritius in the West Indian Ocean (second Island to the East of Madagascar). If I load website www.sunrisesunsetmap.com , and place the cursor on co-ordinates 57'38'E - 20'14'S Mauritius, this gives the moonset time as 19:52 UTC on this day. But as you can see in the map, the moonset termination line does not transit Mauritius at this time. This map represents 4 minutes later at 19:56 UTC. As you can see, the termination line now transits Mauritius. Am I correct in assuming that the 4 minute difference is representative of the afterglow or foreglow in the case of moonrise. And this map is representing a defined "moon light" boundary as its title suggests, and not the actual moon itself breaking or dropping below the horizon ?? Thank you E B

Yes you are quite right, and this is a valid point. I have shown examples of solar / lunar lateral alignments that fit a particular picture, and one example that does not. So in essence, alignment is only credible if all examples correlate to post seismic locations. I missed your point because I was getting a little carried away yesterday ( "armatures" do that sometimes ) so any apologies due, and I appreciate your guidance.

I thank you for your sympathies, but it is really not necessary. I always try to give an honest response to questions, but I guess being too honest can sometimes kill the conversation !. Perhaps we can reconvene after Attu Island, Bougainville or New Zealand make an appearance on the seismic chart .

Yes Studiot… I have heard of Earth Tides, and I still agree with the stress theory. Like everyone else, I must go with accepted beliefs until an alternative credible theory brings the subject to the fore of science again. I believe there is a third agent, but it is not gravity. It is also something I was not ready to broach upon at this stage of this topic, because I fear premature conclusions with be draw on one example again. However, although I am trying to focus on detection, I shall provide another example that "may or may not" relate to a third agent ! Between time periods 18:23:44 UTC - 18:28:04 UTC 21st March, the sun and moon resided on latitude 0'20'N for the duration of this period. You can see from the stated co-ordinate that this is a very equatorial latitude. Earth tide forces are predominant within these regions because for a significant percentage of the year, this domain is covered by the sun and moon in lateral motion. Combine this with the fact that the radius of the Earth is wider at the equator than it is at the polar regions... it would be prudent to say gravitational influence would be stronger in these regions. This daylight world map represents 18:28 UTC 21st March, it relates to the last time point of the solar / lunar alignment stated above. Today is the 27th April as I type this correspondent, which means this alignment is well past the 30 day mark, and has not produced a threshold correlation with any recent 6+ seismic events. One explanation for this is that correlation in this image may relate to higher latitudes or polar regions, which lie at greater distances from the equatorial region, and the process of alignment to manifestation may take longer. I have been logging threshold contacts for the past month on one such location in the Alaskan chain. This location is Attu Island, Near Islands, with reference to the map it is the small Island in the top right corner, which is transited by the sunrise threshold. However, this is still speculation and this scenario could just as easily relate to first light in Bougainville P.N.G. or sunrise in Cook Strait, New Zealand. This daylight world map represents 14:50 UTC 22nd April. As stated in my second posted example, this map relates to time of occurrence of the M 6.0 South sandwich Islands event. If you factor out gravitational forces related to the sun and moon, could there be a third agent responsible for triggering this event ? I did compile statistical data for some time, but regrettably disposed of most material after conceding defeat, and joining the entertainment scene rather than continue perusing real science.

Hello Intrigued... and thank you for the complement . Current USGS prediction policy used to states that an earthquake prediction is only valid if a magnitude 6+ event occurs within a specific margin of error of your chosen location, within a 7 day period. Positive and negative results are incorporated on a spread sheet with each attempt, and positive results that exceed 40% are deemed to warrant further investigation. Not all sites adhere to this policy, but if you want to gain the attention of the mainstream science community, it is only by following these stipulations that you would have a chance of getting your foot in the door !. As you can see from my Philippines example posted above, if you used the alignment scenario to formulate a prediction for an event to occur in the Philippines, within the allotted 7 day period from when you first calculated the alignment. You would have gained a negative result for your efforts, because the first 6+ event occurred 16 days after alignment. I tried to adhere to this policy for 3 years, and in most cases the same scenario would happen as explained before. Therefore I was not able to achieve the required percentage rate for validation. For the last two years, I have been predicting on less formal prediction websites, which in some cases allow the submission of 20 day forecasts, as a result my successful percentage rate has increased, but combined with my earlier attempts, I can only claim moderate success. The down side is that these are the kind of sites that focus on the entertainment factor, and therefore draw "very little" attention from the scientific community ! I formulated my hypothesis whilst engaged in radio astronomy projects, it was never my intention to start predicting earthquakes. But trying to promote this theory with scientists back in the day, was met with the same response you would expect as someone reporting a UFO landing in their back yard . I figured my only option was to test this in the public arena... but I cannot make it work in 7 days !

Another example... According to www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Earth , both the sun and moon resided on latitude 10'04'N for the duration of time periods 08:39:52 UTC - 08:44:43 UTC 16th April. You can appreciate that my calculations are only as accurate as the data afforded me on the individual sites described previously. Some do conflict, so I usually allow myself a 1 minute margin of error. This daylight world map represents 08:44 UTC 16th April. To save miss-representation, the image is accurate to the time stated, the T & D website will not input the 43 seconds required for true representation... so the map time is within the alignment period. According to www.sunrisesunsetmap.com , it was sunrise on this day on co-ordinates 27'27'W - 56'20'S at 08:45 UTC (17 seconds later). These co-ordinates relate to the pre-seismic M 6.0 epicentre East of Vavodovski Island, South Sandwich Islands, which occurred 14:50 UTC 22nd April. Unlike the last example, this image depicts the sun and moon at nearly opposite sides of the Earth from each other. The only common reference here is that they shared the same latitude during the stated period ! Coincidence strike 2 perhaps !!

Yes I have heard this phrase, in order to eliminate correlation from coincidence, the hypothesis would have to stand the test of corresponding with repeated scenarios more times than chance or coincidence would allow, related to past or future seismic events. If I had to evaluate this hypothesis from this "one" example, I too would come to the same conclusion as the responses here !. And yes you are quite right with your statement, because I posted a forecast for Ferndale, Northern California on longitude 124'24'W, based on the fact that this was the longitude location of the sun when the 20:20 UTC aspect change occurred in the ACE data. As a non scientist, may I also suggest that guidance in these matters is "also" appreciated.

I believe you have earned double Kudos on this occasion, related to my poor grammar and wrongful categorisation of topic... your discrete humour is appreciated . This hypothesis is reliant on contact between the solar / lunar terminator thresholds being located on pre-seismic locations at a specific time. In order for this to be achieved, the sun or moon have to be in the right position relative to earth, so yes there is an element of geometry involved... but the key element here is possibly related to physics ! If I was to use an honest scientific approach to respond to a possible trigger scenario involving sunlight, I would have to say that this scenario is not beyond the limits of this hypothesis. However at this stage, my topic is focused on detection. To quote an analogy; it would be ill advised of me to show you the UFO parked in my back yard, until I had used other means possible to convince you that they existed in the first place ! I believe at this point I should include an example scenario related to recent seismic events. It may give a better interpretation of how the pieces of this hypothesis fit together. For modelling purposes I use several interactive online websites, which allow me to calculate positional data and time periods. The first data set relates to the positions of the sun and moon on 6th April. Between time periods 10:59:35 UTC - 11:04:54 UTC on this day, both the sun and moon resided on latitude 6'26'N (degrees, minutes). I derived this time period from www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Earth This daylight world map taken from www.timeanddate.com represents 11:01 UTC 6th April. It is displaying the lateral positions of the sun and moon relative to Earth at the time stated, which is within the alignment period. Focusing attention on the "last light" threshold located in the East Philippines, this threshold is actually located on co-ordinates 125'10E - 11'50'N in the Samar region. The co-ordinates relate to the pre-seismic M 6.4 epicentre which occurred here at 05:38 UTC 23rd April. I derive first / last light time periods from interactive website www.suncalc.net This is the equivalent moonlight world map representing 11:01 UTC 6th April. Focus in this image is the location of moonset on co-ordinates 120'29'E - 14'55'N Luzon, Philippines. These co-ordinates relate to the pre-seismic M 6.1 epicentre, which occurred here 09:11 UTC 22nd April. The image is also showing that it was moonset at this time on co-ordinates 121'41'E - 23'58'N Hualian, Taiwan, which experienced an M 6.1 event 05:01 UTC 18th April at the co-ordinates stated. I derive the sun / moon rise and set times from interactive website www.sunrisesunsetmap.com . This site uses google formatting, and I make location comparisons using the interactive seismic maps provided by www.emsc-csem.org In this scenario, the hypothesis poses the question of weather this lateral positioning of sun and moon, and the subsequent correlations of the thresholds on pre-seismic locations at this time... is coincidental, or a physics related phenomena ?. It also poses the questions, how often does this sun / moon alignment occur at these specific longitudes ?. Is it coincidental that three Magnitude 6+ events would occur within the short time window of when the alignment took place ?. To further answer these questions, the next step is to utilise other online data sources to try and secure credibility for the initial alignment scenario. This is a 6 hour window image of magnetic field data, obtained from www.swpc.noaa.gov/ace-real-time-solar-wind . The date stamp shows that this image was captured on the same day the solar / lunar lateral alignment took place. This is an example of the kind of data I source to formulate a prediction forecast. For the uninitiated, this image is displaying a "significant" aspect change in the magnetic field traces at 20:20 UTC. The Theta, Bz, By traces have increased levels, and the Phi trace has dropped to the floor so to speak. This daylight world map represents 20:20 UTC 6th April. Focus in this image is again on the East Philippines region, and specifically the co-ordinates stated earlier related to the M 6.4 Samar event. The image is depicting that first light occurred at this time, on this pre-seismic epicentre... this can also be verified using suncalc.net . I captured 18 hours of ACE data on this day, and the aspect change in the image above was the only one to occur in this class. So credible data from a satellite also seems to correspond with the alignment scenario !. It is also interesting to note that an M 6.3 event occurred on this day in East Timor on longitude 125'01'E, as stated above the M 6.4 Samar event occurred on longitude 125'10'E !. This hypothesis only works if you make the assumption that unusual signatures and aspect changes in online data (as shown above) relate to contacts being made by one of the solar / lunar thresholds on a potential seismic anomaly. Over a unspecified period of time, these signatures can make repeated contacts with the same locations. In this case, I have made an "after the fact" determination that this particular aspect change related to the M 6.4 Samar epicentre. However, without the initial alignment scenario to give some kind of direction to region, the aspect change could also be determined as sunrise in Papua New Guinea and Japan, or sunset in the Azores and the Mid-Atlantic Ridge region etc. Hence the complexities of trying to play noughts and crosses with sixty squares ! I shall finish at this point, and hope I have not crossed the line with any site regulations... my model only works by employing other interactive sources ! Thank you E B