SCIENTIST'S SHOULD BE OPEN MINDED
Rebuttal to July 19th 1997, Seattle Times Article

Dear Editor,
   Although living far outside the Seattle Area, I do enjoy your coverage of
Local and World Wide News on the internet.
   On July 19, 1997 an Article appeared entitled "Seer unshaken: Quake WILL
come within 8 days", By; Sean Cavanagh. The article was well done but, I do
have a problem with the unsubstantiated comments by Scientist Ruth Ludwin.
According to the article she said, "in the past 28 years there have been 130
recorded earthquakes of magnitude 3.5 or more within 140 miles of the Puget
Sound area - about 4.6 a year. Based on this schedule, there's a 9 percent
chance of earthquakes occurring in any given week - by chance alone", and went
on to say (quoted), "If you have his kind of low threshold for measuring them,
you're going to be right a lot,". She was refering to Earthquake Predictor
, Geologist.
   These kind of comments by seismologists seem to land in every article were
Mr. Berkland's name or theory is mentioned. I am tired of it! As a result, I
took it upon myself to do an independent study into truth. This information is
available on the internet, and that is what was used to gather the lists of
quakes. I invite anyone to contest the following data in total, as it shows a
significant trend. One that "science" cannot keep ignoring, and it is my
opinion, considering the effort Mr. Berkland has put in to informing the
Seattle Area's residence of earthquake potentials.
   You are welcome to use, research, and print any of these comments or the
data. I am 's sitemaster, but have never met him and only spoken
to him directly(non-email) once. You could say I'm biased, as I believe in his
theory, but I receive no pay for managing his site(I refuse to), it is my
contribution to society, not to . Isn't it time to put some
statistics out there, not just opinion and conjecture.
Please find attached the data and analysis.
Sincerely,
          Will Fletcher
          efci@concentric.net
   Regarding article in the Seattle Times, July 19, 1997 edition, and comments
by Scientist Ruth Ludwin.
A) Quakes per year(28)   = 4.6    (28 years quoted by Ruth Ludwin)
B) Quakes per Month(28)  = 0.34   (28 years quoted by Ruth Ludwin)
C) Quakes per Year Study = 4.8    (1995 to present 30 months *)
D) Quakes per Month Study= 0.4    (1995 to present 30 months *)
E) Chance Syzygy Quakes  = 3.15   (within 30 month period)
F) Actual Syzygy Quakes  = 9      (within 30 month period)
G) Chance Non Syzygy Qss = 8.85   (within 30 month period)
H) Actual Non Syzygy Q's = 3      (within 30 month period)
   Study Years were 1995-present. Comprising of 30 months, during which there
were a total of 12 quakes, 30 Syzygy 8 Day Windows totaling 240 Days within
Windows, and 673 Days outside of Windows.
   Chance dictates that 3.154 quakes should have occurred during Predicted
Windows.  There were 9.
Given the probabilities, Syzygy Windows were 285% over Chance.
   Chance dictates that 8.846 quakes should have occurred outside Predicted
Windows.  There were 3.
Given the probabilities, Non Syzygy Days were 295% under Chance.
That represents a differential of about 841%. (NOTE: Percentages are multiplied)
 
What are the chances of that!
* Study years were limited due to lack of personal knowledge of Syzygy window
  periods, prior to Jan 1995. Leap day for 1996 was dropped(a non-window day).
 
Quake Data used:
start time = 1968/01/01,00:00:00
end time = 1997/07/21,02:36:47
minimum latitude = 46.3
maximum latitude = 49.0
minimum longitude = -124.0
maximum longitude = -121.2
minimum magnitude = 3.5
maximum magnitude = 10
Date        Time        Lat      Lon       Depth  Mag  Magt Nst Gap Clo RMS  SRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*1995/01/29 03:11:22.68 47.3867 -122.3638  15.83  5.00 coda  52  23  20 0.17  UW
*1995/05/20 12:48:48.20 46.8810 -121.9407  13.42  4.10 coda  50  33  07 0.15  UW
*1995/07/13 10:28:50.27 46.8188 -121.8780  08.29  3.70 coda  70  23  02 0.31  UW
*1996/05/03 04:04:22.67 47.7603 -121.8755  04.10  5.40 coda  45  39  09 0.26  UW
*1996/05/03 04:56:44.80 47.7910 -121.8310  05.00  3.50 coda  13  00  00 0.00  SEA
*1996/05/04 14:38:28.31 47.7660 -121.8832  02.47  3.60 coda  42  44  03 0.50  UW
-1996/09/24 12:45:47.11 47.7202 -122.9700  47.34  3.50 coda  50  47  10 0.21  UW
-1996/09/29 23:07:00.38 48.0493 -122.7158  55.95  3.60 coda  40  71  19 0.23  UW
*1997/02/10 04:26:57.65 47.5580 -122.2995  00.04  3.50 coda  65  41  04 0.23  UW
*1997/06/23 19:13:27.03 47.5995 -122.5725  07.17  4.90 coda  51  20  17 0.23  UW
*1997/06/27 10:47:49.65 47.5988 -122.5513  00.95  3.90 coda  69  21  18 0.68  UW
-1997/07/11 01:28:55.32 47.5893 -122.5428  06.10  3.50 coda  48  39  18 0.21  UW
* denotes quake within predicted window.
- denotes quake striking outside of a predicted window.
NOTE: If study was based on 3.7M quakes, Syzygy windows would be 100%!
Research and Document constructed by;   Will Fletcher
                                        efci@concentric.net
                                        1715 S. Crestview St.
                                        Porterville, CA. 93257
                                        (805) 257-5860

NOTE: To Site viewers, Please. It is time to take a stand. Let your local papers and media know the truth. Distribute this data freely. I am in the process of conducting independent research into 's Theory. It is independent, as I seek the truth, where ever it might lead. Certain aspects seem obvious to me, if the truth supports them, as it is significantly in 7 of 8 so far, then the certainty solidifies. My brother (a skeptic) recently read the above, his comment was, "Either A) Berkland is Right. B) Berkland is causing the Quakes. C) God likes Berkland. D) Berkland should be buying Lottery tickets, and not be wasting his time with Earthquakes." Thank you, Bob, for your simplification of the obvious.
Whether or not a Quake occurs in this window is irrelevant, how often is your Weather Wo(Man) right? The above should state obviously that although is not 100% right, he states a probabilty in this particular Window of 75%, which means, he concedes that 1 out of 4 times a Quake will Not occur in this particular type of Window. "Science" seems to forget this, and also seems to be adamant against the Theory. Why? Basically Jim's Windows comprise 26% of time, overall preliminary studies outside the Seattle Area indicate that roughly 48% of recorded Quakes occur within these Windows, this must be sincerely significant, it seems that way to me. Recently an article in a distant paper reminded me of the following, and another brother (a supporter) and I had a good laugh about it, it stated that because "Berkland's" quake was 10 minutes late, it was a false prediction, since Windows close at midnight, our laugh was that, "Yes, I got up at 12:01, ate all the food, dumped the water, and went back to bed". While Jim can't claim this particular Quake as a successful prediction, what is the reality of the situation. This brings to mind Hurricanes, many means track them, yet if you watch, landfall projections and timing are always broad and vague, you can't see earthquakes, why are the criterion so different?
These are my words, Will Fletcher, not 's words, although he may concur.

RETURN TO HOME PAGE

By: Will Fletcher