2 cents: Some of this work would need to be self-published. But, if not presented in some kind of mainstream scientific way, it might be a waste of money, because no one who matters will pay any attention. I'm interested in "show the way", not co-author. For example, I am not a seismologist so being a co-author on a paper might not help its chances. If I can talk Lowell into doing a FFA paper, and provide some guidance on how this should be done, there are a couple of famous scientists who he has worked with, who are interested in his work and might be good as co-authors-but would have to provide some work to do this. I would be interested in seeing a copy of rejected papers/proposals with the review comments. The risk is that I may agree with the reviews. Also, again, I've only been reading this page for 3 weeks, but things like ear-tones are way too vague to be published (I agree they are real, but don't have any reason to think they are associated with earthquakes (not the same as saying they are not associated with earthquakes)). Even Don's predictions might not be publishable without a physical mechanism/hypothesis (I'm reserving jusgement on these).

Concerning Turkey: check out the 2000 A.G.U abstract by Seeber and Armbruster. They set up instruments near the eastern end of the Izmit rupture after the deadly Aug 1999 earthquake on the North Anatolia system, while most others focussed farther east. They were able to record in great detail the migration of earthquakes towards the hypocenter of the following Duzce (sp?) M>7 earthquake. Or, I have not looked at this for a while, but there were a lot of patterns of earthquake occurrence that could be considered precursory. I made a fair amount if noise at the Sept 2000 SCEC annual meeting that SCEC2 should be making 3D fault maps and using powerful software to see earthquakes occuring in 3D space in real time (or as close to real time as one can get with precise/accurate hypocenters.-Chris