There appears to me to be some confusion here regarding uses for “ear tone” types of data. And so I am going to briefly discuss one of the places where I believe they could be helpful.

My personal earthquake forecasting program involves in part matching certain types of patterns in my earthquake precursor data with similar patterns in earthquake data. I am personally collecting as many as 3 precursor data points on a given day and many more on some days. And I feel that those data are pointing to a good percentage of the earthquakes which are occurring around the world near populated areas.

One of my present efforts involves trying to get governments and scientific groups to develop a more sophisticated version of the forecasting program which I have developed. Fairly high quality earthquake precursor data would then have to be fed into that program in order for it to produce good results.

Researchers could use data which I myself am collecting with my blessing. But to generate reliable earthquake forecasts I feel that they would really want to collect data like that from more than one source.

My preliminary analyses of some of the ear tone data supplied by other people indicate to me those types of data collected from a number of people could be combined and treated as if they were from a single source. Patterns could then be identified in them and used to forecast earthquakes.

That is my “working” theory. It still has to be proven. And I believe that the ear tone data at Canie’s Web page might be helpful to researchers who wanted to determine if that theory is accurate. If so then they could begin collecting those types of data from people around the world. And perhaps that would make it possible for us to forecast many of our destructive earthquakes.

There is only one way to find out if that is the case. And arguing endlessly about it is not going to get the job done.