EARTHQUAKE CLOUDS AND
SHORT TERM PREDICTION

Reply to the editor-in-chief of NCGT

- March 17, 2010 renew-

Reply

Choi: I read your article on the airbus crash. Your paper is well written, and data and argument are convincing. It is another application of earthquake vapour clouds. The world aviation communities will take a serious note of your idea. Congratulations!

I am planning to introduce your paper in the Publications section of the next NCGT issue. Please give me permission for this. If you agree, I’ll contact the publisher.

Shou: Thank you very much for your Congratulations and plan to introduce our paper. Of course, I agree with the plan.

Choi: Recently, I watched a TV program “Why earthquakes are not predictable?” on an Australian TV. I saw Suzan Hough and other USGS seismologists. I wonder why they don’t hire you or adopt your theory, and let you run a group in USGS with a big budget. It is good for the country and the world.

Shou : It is interesting to hear about such a TV program, but I understand. The scientists of the USGS have made four earthquake predictions: the first Parkfield on Oct. 20, 1992, the second Parkfield on Nov. 15, 1993, the Puget Sound between Washington State and Canada with Canadian scientists in early 1999, and the Los Angeles with the JPL of the NASA on Aug. 3, 1999. Each prediction costs a lot, but none is successful. Therefore, their claim is understandable.

However, If their claim were right, Wright brothers would not have created the first airplane because all earlier airplane makers had failed. Moreover, human beings lack wings and feather. Furthermore, If their claim were right, my three successes of predictions would not have been true. The first success is my Bam prediction. It hits the M6.8 Bam earthquake on time, area and magnitude exactly and the quake has been the only one in the predicted area and magnitude in history (1). The second is a comparison between a team of both the JPL of the NASA and the USGS, and me. The former cost multimillion dollars to predict the next major quake in Los Angeleson on Aug. 3, 1999, while the latter predicted the next major quake in one of two hot places including Landers on Aug. 10 (2). The M7 Hecton Mine quake near Landers proclaims my success although I have no fund. The third is my 50 independent predictions, verified by the USGS. "Peer on" (suppose the data of the USGS without error) the 50 predictions, 68% of them are correct on time, area and magnitude. A random guesser gets a chance of only 1 in 16,000 to simulate the 50 predictions in spite of blaming all problems of satellite data, earthquake data and my experience as a pioneer on the vapor precursor(1). Due to the above two reasons, they’d better claim “Why earthquakes are not predictable by the present scientists of the USGS.”

Dr. Susan Hough might forget Dr. Alan Jones’ “Fair Review” (4). However, she is better than others. Once, she stood out to support the Mojave Desert prediction of Keilis-Borok's team of the UCLA in 2004 although it failed later as I had predicted (3).  

Your last question: "I wonder why ..." is excellent. Feelings of an optimist and a pessimist may answer your question. A doctor of NASA looked at my achievements as "extraordinary claim" and wrote, "If he (Shou) were more modest in his claims and If he looked at the cloud phenomenon as one of many possible precursory signs, I would feel much more comfortable" on Dec. 10, 2006. Dr. Robert J Geller wrote, "Prediction claims attract intense and unwarrantedly optimistic coverage by the media. Charles F. Richter, developer of the earthquake magnitude scale commented in 1977, "Since my first attachment to the seismology, I have had a horror of predictions and of predictors. Journalists and general public rush to any suggestion of earthquake prediction like hogs toward a full trough. {Prediction} provides a happy hunting ground for amateurs, cranks and outright publicity-seeking fakers." (5) In short, their honor is more important than truth, lives of people, and budgets of governments.

A Chilean doctor recently wrote me, “The problem is your judges are part of the establishment which has the last word on its matter. If a newcomer as you arrives with a promising new reference of analysis, you change the market reference from them to you (the new referent) leaving them as followers.  This will jeopardize social and academic positions besides, the most important, jeopardizing the access to new funds, because the funds for the studies they are doing are no longer needed. This is the main issue!!!   Their arms to defend themselves are denial and/or ignoring the value and when consulted about it, even they know about your theory, they say, ‘I don't know about it even it may sound interesting. I will look for some information’, their only objective is to delay the application of your knowledge until you become tired in trying to push it and leave the free space to them” on Feb. 28, 2010. Similarly, a Chinese scientist wrote, “If your work makes others useless, neither Chinese, nor American will notice yours” on Mar. 9.  The both comments should be the best answer.

Thank you very much for great wishes. For truth and people, I hope you or anyone else to find a platform for a fair debate on whether or not my earthquake vapor theory is reliable between a team of the USGS and me. I have seven times to debate with scientists of the USGS, and win them all. I believe in wining them again.

 

References
  1. Darrell Harrington & Zhonghao Shou. Bam Prediction & Space TechnologySeminars of the United Nations Programme on Space Applications 16 39-63 (2005).
  2. Zhonghao Shou California Earthquake Situation Analysis Aug. 10, 1999
  3. Zhonghao Shou About K-B's Prediction Sep. 4, 2004
  4. Zhonghao Shou Alan Jones’ “Fair Review” Aug.21, 2007
  5. Robert J Geller. Predicting Earthquakes Is Impossible. Los Angeles Times M5. Feb. 2, 1997.

 

 

Sign Our Guestbook GuestbookView Our Guestbook

Updated: March 17, 2010 | Webmaster