Hi 2 Cents,

I'm always glad to hear from anyone with a valid point of view.

Just to further clarify one thing, you said:

BTW, I had always assumed that the purpose of the ear tone log was to create a record of ear tones so that a database could be built up to facilitate study and comprehension of this phenomena...especially as it relates to trying to accurately predict future quakes.

In this there have been unforseen pitfalls. It is unfortunate, but such is life. A person who does not know how to interpret the tones can use the information and do so in an incorrect way and what develops in the end creates the wrong assumption.

One curious thing about ear tones is that each person who hears them, receives their own personal ID that comes with them. For instance, my left ear means north, but to another tone sensitive, left is south. So we have to know that is the case and thus it becomes so individual, it may be not something one can load into a database.

However, one thing I am absolutely certain of from what I have seen for the past three years is that the length of the tone determines the distance to the future epicenter. But some people forget this and say that a 5 second tone might come from Peru. This cannot be so.

So the desire to have the research is valid, but one has to be careful who handles the material. As for advising anyone of a 6.0 or larger quake, I would say something for sure, but most likely it would come through Don rather than me. But we do have to keep in mind that this is still in the research stages as far as forecasting goes, so its not a sure thing even if one hears a tone.

The absense of the event within ten days after a tone is heard is something Don and I will try to explain in our research. While one can look at the positives and match tones to quakes, you have to explain why this does not always occur. If you cannot explain this, you are only looking at one segment of the experience.

So if you are following me here, you can understand very well why an independant person giving warnings based on ear tones alone could be given little credibility. Just one failure and you're history. But that person might not know they are history if someone does not tell them directly. Those forecasts might end up under the delete key and the forecaster might never know it.

Another consideration is that even if someone has some kind of track record for predicting quakes and sends a warning to a government, or even an individual scientist, they may not be at liberty to act on the information. One needs to develop a more action related source than the above. Today, I don't think it exists; there are some deriviates thereof, and even when the door is open and friendly, those who get notified are not always so supportive. I had a e-mail box fire once and I'm not so likely to invite another one. LOL

I hope this helps clarify some of my concerns.

Petra