Hi Bob,

I spoke to Charlotte within the past year and we discussed much of the above. With ear tone sensitives they are quite individual in their interpretation of what they hear and some hear tones that others do not. Much of this I believe depends on the geographical location where the sensitive resides. IE: A tone I might hear for the San Jose, CA area would be perceived differently from a person who actually lives in San Jose.

Inasmuch as I am aware there has not to date been a scientific paper written on this subject and perhaps its time for that process to occur. Its rather an acknowledgement that this precursor known to many around the world, has a basis in study and research. In a way it also validates the experience of those who hear these tones. While it is acknowledged that animals hear something before an earthquake which often frightens them and causes them to flee, people at this point have nothing to support their experiences in an acknowledged scientific way.

In looking at other theories known as precursors such as clustering, tidal changes, et cetera, they are not a guarantee that an earthquake of some size will occur when these events are in presense, but a "marker" that they may occur. Nothing as we all know is 100%.

We must also explain why earthquakes do not occur all of the time, even though an ear tone is heard. In the use of forecasting earthquakes this factor must have an explanation, and in acknowledgement of the explanation, this is where I think someone who has not had the tone themselves must be wary in using the information that it occurred in making a forecast. For instance, if I had an ear tone that was 30 seconds long and I felt it was for the Sandwich Islands and someone takes that information and sends a warning to those living in the Sandwich Islands and no earthquake occurs there, then that persons credibility would then become questionable. You have to be willing to accept the hits with the misses and one miss may be all it takes in a global warning situation.

A person who submits to and creates a theory is merely making a presentation of an observation, which is making note of it. For instance, if we look at the Seismic Gap Theory which is attributed to Max Wyss in observation of this; it is understood and its basis is used in earthquake probability studies; but it does not say when an earthquake will occur, only that the absense of earthquakes in a given zone means that at some future date, when activity begins to emerge, a large quake could occur there.

Ear tones may simply be another small part of the earthquake prediction puzzle. What I find interesting in most situations is that a ear tone is heard in advance of physical data changes and many times the data will not note changes until the time the earthquake occurs. It is an interesting topic and perhaps one that should be shared so more can learn about it and perhaps in time which to investigate more robustly.

Petra