|
Hello,
Thank you for
concerning my health. I have gotten better after chemotherapy, but Mantle
Cell Lymphoma has no way to cure completely.
I have
investigated all earthquakes of magnitude 7 and above in 2003 and 2004, and
found all their clouds. No exception, have I found the Haiti
cloud, too.
I agree that the Haiti
devastation is a tragedy, but a little likely a human tragedy. On 8 April 2005, an officer____ of UN
OCHA, requested me to offer him predictions to prevent UN workers in the Indonesia
tsunami countries. I gave him seven predictions all correctly. I also
gave him article “Bam Earthquake Prediction & Space
Technology” (Bam Paper), published by the UN (1). He claimed to read it
carefully on 13 April. However, he claimed, “After reading quite a
few articles on the web about earthquake prediction, I found out that it
is commonly admitted that prediction is impossible” to reject my
request to solve satellite data problems, described in the article, on 26
October.
In
the Bam Paper, I show two facts for the reliability of my theory in practice.
One is my Bam prediction. The M6.8 Bam, Iran
earthquake announced my success by the only one in my predicted magnitude and
location in history. The other is my 50 independent predictions, verified by
the USGS. Supposing data of the USGS without error and an earthquake at
a point without radius (called American "Peer on"), 34
predictions are all correct in time, area and magnitude. Even if blaming all
16 misses on the vapor precursor theory, Monte Carlo simulation shows that a
random guesser has a probability of 1 in 5,000 to be as successful as
or more successful than the same set of earthquakes, although all the 16
misses were in fact due to problems of satellite data, earthquake data, and
Shou’s experience as a pioneer (1, 2). The
Brelsford–Jones’s score method gives a probability of 1 in
16,000. Namely, my predictions are on statistic significance and without
false warning. Therefore, I wonder about why this officer of UN believes in
neither the two facts, nor UN’s yearbook, but “a few articles on the web.”
On 24-26 April
2006, I appealed governments to use 0.01% of their budgets on
prediction to solve satellite data problems and earthquake data problems to
save people while introducing my work to scientists in Beijing
three times. I also published this appeal later (3). I also introduced the
Bam Paper to the director of the Chinese
Seismological Bureau (CSB) and requested him to solve those data problems.
However, he ignored. I also wrote the U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, but
my letter was returned due to “wrong address”. Thus, I, myself,
went to the UN in New York to
deliver, but the doormen neither let me enter, nor delivered my letter.
In
the USA, Dr.
Alan Jones, referee of Seismological Research Letter of the USGS, put
his “Review” out to attack me in front of many witnesses, but
became speechless after my defense (4). Three doctors urged Dr. ____,
editor in chief, to publish my paper. She claimed, “I am not longer the
editor of the journal” on 8
September 2007. However, when she requested my permit to reprint
my Northridge earthquake cloud photograph in her book, she might forget her
claim and was going to do such a ‘fair’ introduction:
“The familiar question of whether Shou’s predictions have done
better than random chance”.
.
There
were too many such authorities to save people with my theory. On the other
hand, the authorities have spent billion dollars a year budgets without a
reliable prediction. For instance, a team of NASA’s JPL and the USGS
predicted a major quake in Los Angeles by geodetic with most modern technology to the
Public on 3 August 1999.
After getting three key words (bold, brown above), I predicted its failure in
one second. To reply panic people, I predicted the
next major quake in one of two hot
places, including Landers by essay
“California Earthquake Situation Analysis” in my web site on 10
August (5). Although the Los
Angeles prediction cost multimillion
dollars, the M7.0 Hector Mine Earthquake proclaimed my success by exactly in
a hot place near Landers on 16 October. Those
wasted money should have been enough to solve the satellite data problems.
.
After
a long observation, I found an earthquake of magnitude 7 or above in Sichuan
near the arrowed place of the satellite image on 18 January 2007, attached (6). I was monitoring when
the cloud would erupt to predict the time until early April 2008 when I got
serious stomachache and lost weight of 11.4 kg (Doctors told me that was
cancer in September). On 12 May, the M8 Sichuan earthquake killed 87587
people and caused a loss of $86 billion, surprisingly at my estimated place.
If OCHA, USGS or CSB had given me an assistant to continue my
monitor, this tragedy would have reduced. In addition, I got a 3-day delay to
download images of the Bam cloud due to an Internet problem. If I had gotten
a tiny support to prevent the link of my
computer to the Internet from blocking, many
victims might have gotten enough time from my Bam prediction to survive.
.
After
the Sichuan earthquake, the CSB
predicted an M6-7 aftershock on 19-20 May, but failed. Many people requested
me for prediction. In spite of sick, I predicted two large earthquakes to
them and the both predictions were all correct. However, our web site was
blocked in China
soon. We set up a new web site, but it was blocked in China,
too. Meanwhile, Chinese medium widely spread impossible to predict
earthquakes.
.
On 1 June 2009,
the Air France crash caught my attention. Unable to solve social problems,
did I change my work and write a draft to explain the cause of this crash.
Encouraged by Prof. Giles Foody, editor-in-chief of International Journal
of Remote Sensing and Remote Sensing Letters, I and my coauthors
submitted a manuscript: “Using the earthquake vapour theory to
explain the French airbus crash” where we acknowledge both Dundee
Univ. and you. Lacking time due to disease, I finished the
rebuttal and the revision in hospital. This paper has been accepted and will
be published by Remote Sensing Letters soon. I also wrote a comment
to Nature to explain problems of its news report of “Tsunami
watch” on 23 December 2009 (7), and the moderator claims that Nature will not
hide it.
After the Indonesia
tragedy, the Sichuan tragedy
happened. After the Sichuan
tragedy, the Haiti
tragedy happened. OCHA and governments have aided the victims from Indonesia
to China, and
then from China
to Haiti. It
should be a human tragedy because officers would rather aid victims after a
tragedy than to solve the data problems with much less money to save their
lives before a tragedy.
I
deeply sympathize with Haiti
victims and hope to end such tragedy. Therefore, I hope to know whether or not
you or somebody you know who own power to solve the satellite
data problems and the earthquake data problems.
Sincerely,
Zhonghao
|
View
Our Guestbook