Hi All,

I wanted to take a moment to review the prediction for Stovepipe Wells, acknowledge the errors in the prediction and hopefully demonstrate to other ear tone sensitives some of what I've learned from the process.

First, let us review the prediction as listed below:

Forecast - Stovepipe Wells, CA
Posted by Petra Challus on October 23, 2001 at 17:04:49:
Magnitude: 4.2 - 5.0
From: 10/23/01 5:04PM PDT - To: 11/15/01 Midnight PDT
Location: Stovepipe Wells, CA
Top Latitude: - Bottom Latitude:
Right Longitude: - Left Longitude:
Heads Up you CA desert dwellers, you've got incoming. This forecast is based upon a right ear tone lasting approximately 15 seconds of medium sound tone. Not much like granite, so duration tells me it is further south. But not due south.
Petra

Here are the stats for the actual earthquake that arrived:

5.1 2001/10/30 23:56:16 33.508N 116.514W 15.2 15 km (10 mi) ESE of Anza, CA

Here is the information about the fault system in regard to the geological substructure of this area:

Patrick Abbott, an SDSU geologist, said that while Tuesday night's short earthquake didn't release much energy to the surface, the seismic waves traveled easily through the hard granite beneath the surface around Anza -- hence the sharp jolt felt 60 miles or more away.

So in the end, the window as correct, the magnitude on the high end was nearly correct, but the location was way off. As I knew nothing about the area where the earthquake actually occurred I made no association with any granite composition. The prediction said it didn't sound so much like granite. That's right, because granite is the substructure, not the upper structure.

In the end, experience is the teacher, but if one looks at this is the "very widest degree" it is easy to see that yes indeed a 5.0 earthquake arrived within the lower 1/4 of the State of California in the time frame referenced. A 5.0 magnitude quake does not occur on a routine basis and it also demonstrates that the hypothetical distance factor of 38 miles per second of heard ear tone is not so far off either.

Obviously, this method is truly in the learning stages and it needs so much more of an effort. But you have to rely on the Earth to deliver the test material from which you can learn. It also requires others who are sensitives as well and people like Don who make forecasts using some kind of data. Each can support each other, but not always is only one method correct.

For people who are tone sensitives, both readers here and posters, I would like to encourage you to log your tones as best possible and if you are so inclined, send Don your tone logs and he will follow up. You can e-mail Don at doneck@garlic.com

As they say, "learn from your mistakes" and yet these words are also encouraging, "you cannot succeed or fail, if you do not try."

Petra