Hi All. In as much as Petra has stated she will no longer post I thought I would pretend to be her. Of course I don’t have her style and flair, but I think I can do it.

Anyway if I don’t I’ll be the one to hear about it. Not you.

Hi EQF,

As you know, I’ve been collecting ear tone data for a couple of years from several subjects and one thing which is consistent is that they only have one tone per location if the quake arrives within ten days. Today, two subjects had ear tones, which matched the New Idria quake. Subject A. reported a tone on 1/1/03 and Subject B on 1/4/03. Both subjects matched the distance precisely. Neither subject has reported tones for distant countries.

I have noticed frequently you use various words for describing ear tones, such as signals or warning signals. It might be a little more consistent if you used the word "tone" when describing your material. Also you don’t seem to have any mathematical method to determine the locations from the ear tone subjects you use, so far as I can see from your material. Thus, I am a little bewildered as to how you determine the difference between a quake, which may occur in one place or another. As for receiving a tone in November, in my program, I do not allow any quakes as matches after 15 days. You also said that you had a reversal in the coding. Any inconsistencies in reporting data of any kind would have to be dismissed, because it does not follow the pattern.

The goal is to have a method that produces, repeated results, time and again. If this does not occur, the method is not valid, nor worthy of consideration, in my humble opinion.

Petra

Okay. How did I do? I don’t think I did to bad. Take Care…Don, The Great Pretender