SCIENTIST'S SHOULD BE OPEN MINDED
Rebuttal to July 19th 1997, Seattle Times Article
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
James Berkland, 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 James Berkland'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 James Berkland. Isn't it time to put some
statistics out there, not just opinion and conjecture.
Please find attached the data and analysis.Sincerely,
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
There were 9.
Given the probabilities, Syzygy Windows were 285% over Chance.
Chance dictates that 8.846 quakes should have occurred outside Predicted
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
P.O. Box 800022
Santa Clarita, CA. 91380-0022
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 James Berkland'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 James Berkland 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 James Berkland's words, although he may concur.
RETURN TO HOME PAGE
By: Will Fletcher