Hi EQF,

You said: "Hi Don. I thought that I prepared the files at my Web sites in such a manner that they could be understood by most people who have at least some background in science. And I cannot understand what the problem is here. So far, only one international authority on earthquake forecasting has indicated to me that he understands how my forecasting program works. And I gather that he immediately understood the material."

Something seems odd here. If only one scientist can understand what you are intending to convey, then it must not be really clear to them. Thus, if not clear to them, how should it be clear to us?

As for the Ear Tones and the Moon, my experience personally does not lend any correlations. 90% or better of the quakes which occur following ear tones arrive within 15 days, so the 30 day wait until the next Lunar event arrives is to long. While I can't speak for every ear tone person in this regard, I've observed their forecasts for a number of years and most all of them have the same window as mine; 15 days or less.

I am a little troubled with your language when you use the term "warning signal." If I were a scientist or government person receiving a warning message and I found out later that the "warning signal" was from an ear tone and not some mechanical or mathematical formulation, I think I'd be rather upset about receiving the forecast.

We have to be honest in the assessment of the use of ear tone data in delivering serious earthquake warnings. We are not ready yet. There is too much that is not known and it has proven over time not to be reliable enough. I know I would not want to be responsible for warning a city which might include some type of expense or exodus and take responsibility for it. Therefore, the question remains, are you willing to accept that responsibility?

Petra