Hello EDG,

You said:
"Good luck with your publication efforts. I myself published one paper on earthquake sensitivity in 1996 and after that abandoned efforts to publish another."

In all fairness, if you have already published a paper on ear tone sensitivity, I would like to read it before I present my paper, to make sure I am not stepping on your toes in this arena. Could you please provide the name of the paper, the name of the organization where it was published and the volume and reference number?

I realize that due to your situation, you cannot provide me with this information without revealing your identity. Therefore, I would suggest that you send the information to someone you can trust. Lowell Whiteside is about as trustworthy as anyone I know, so perhaps you can send it to him. At least he can validate the paper and advise me if I am perhaps about to plagiarize your theory.

I am also curious to know if you presented the paper in a scientific convention and if so, what kind of response did you receive? Was it positive? Negative? Did you learn anything from the science community that would give you the impression that they are in support of your work?

You said:
"My theories etc. were and are still evolving so rapidly that each time I attempted to prepare a paper the theories in it were obsolete before I could finish it."

Let us visit the dictionary and for the sake of the viewing audience, state clearly what a theory is. From New Webster's Dictionary we have the following:

Theory:
A systematic arrangement of facts with respect to some real or hypothetical laws; a hypothetical explanation of phenomena; a hypothesis not yet empirically verified as law but accepted as the basis of experimentation; a plan or system suggest as a method of action; an ideal arrangement of events, (in) abstract knowledge, speculation; conjecture.

This is where you and I differ; I have come to a conclusion about the genesis of ear tones and can explain my theory of their existence and points of origination. I have not wavered in these thoughts for more than a year, but have only added more validation by a greater understanding of the phenomena.

You said:
"And if you check my "Seismic Activity" page you will see that on my own I can probably at times collect as many as a dozen warning signal data points in a single day. And most of them will be of what I regard as a much higher quality than ear tones which I myself often simply ignore."

If you are hearing ear tones yourself, be they of good quality or otherwise, would it not be prudent to attempt to match those tones with an earthquake, if for no other reason to validate that your ear tones are earthquake related?

You said:
"Have a long talk beforehand with Charlotte King. I believe that she has already compiled a tremendous amount of information regarding earthquake sensitivity related phenomena including probably ear tones."

I did speak to her more than a year ago and we share the same thoughts in that we do not wish others, without our permission, to use our data for forecasting earthquakes. Perhaps I should call her and ask her to send me an e-mail so we can have this in her words directly?

You said:
"And then I would request that you not comment on this again."

Insofar as I am aware, this medium of communication has been developed so people can discuss their thoughts on phenomena, data, theories and other matters related to the earthquake experience. In your post you have brought some material to this site and I feel I have a valid reason to respond to.

You often make reference to people dying all over the world and that they need a warning before large earthquakes occur. In this I am in total agreement with you. However, I do not at this time feel that only using ear tones alone for the purpose of placing any city or government on notice is adequate. It most likely will remain that ear tones will be in support of other data, but on their own will remain insufficient. This can be held true in many respects to the formulation of public warnings in that it would fall within the same category as clustering, swarms, lunar and tidal influences and so forth. None of them on their own can be taken as a firm precursor for a possible impending earthquake.

To be given acceptance by any government there are guidelines that must be met at all times. These have been set forth by the science community and have not changed for quite a number of years. A prediction must include the date of the expected earthquake, (window) the location of the epicenter, the expected magnitude of the quake and the reason a person believes this quake will occur, above random chance.

The reason by way of an ear tone cannot on its own stand this test. However, it can compliment the basis of a forecast if one were to include instrumentation data that supports it and knowledge of other phenomena that is occurring.

In this discussion, I would like to have a response from you. You have made some interesting statements and I feel there is more room to elaborate on these.

Petra