|
Re: California earthquakes |
Hi Don, I believe that it is too early to begin drawing too many conclusions regarding the nature of the energy field signals which are responsible for ear tones and earthquake sensitivity in general. Geomagnetic storms do appear to me to be involved at some level. I have some fascinating data regarding ear tones. And I think that it is a real shame that with all of the scientists and researchers around the world there do not appear to be any who are interested in taking a detailed look at those phenomena. Over the years I have written to a number of people and groups about them. Only a fraction of the precursor signals listed on my 131.html Web page are ear tones. And they have the codes “let” or “ret” for left or right ear tones. There are no tone duration or direction data there. A reversal in the coding means something like the following: The sun is 40 longitude degrees to the west of the moon in the sky with the first signal. With the second signal the moon is 40 degrees to the west of the sun. It is a little more complex than that. But that is the general idea. Try looking at earthquake forecasting like this: On the average, 10,000 lives are lost each year because of earthquakes. And even if you get only 1 forecast in 10 correct but that one forecast lets people near the earthquake fault zone know they should be checking for other signs that one is approaching such as cracks in building foundations, then if they spot its approach you may have saved 1000 lives. How often do you hear that someone was able to save 1000 lives? Follow Ups: ● Re: California earthquakes - Don in Hollister 10:23:17 - 1/10/2003 (17770) (2) ● Re: California earthquakes - chris in suburbia 08:50:39 - 1/15/2003 (17792) (1) ● Re: California earthquakes - Canie 22:29:48 - 1/15/2003 (17794) (1) ● 1989 solar flare, answer to Canie - chris in suburbia 08:22:42 - 1/17/2003 (17800) (0) ● Re: California earthquakes - R.Shanmugasundaram 21:43:31 - 1/11/2003 (17781) (1) ● Re: California earthquakes - EQF 00:13:56 - 1/12/2003 (17783) (2) ● Elephant and Blind Men - R.Shanmugasundaram 14:27:53 - 1/12/2003 (17785) (1) ● Re: Elephant and Blind Men - 2cents 13:38:40 - 1/14/2003 (17791) (2) ● Re: Elephant and Blind Men - R.Shanmugasundaram 03:38:59 - 1/16/2003 (17797) (1) ● Re: Elephant and Blind Men - 2cents 15:52:03 - 1/19/2003 (17805) (1) ● Re: Elephant and Blind Men - R.Shanmugasundaram 10:40:01 - 1/21/2003 (17825) (0) ● Re: Elephant and Blind Men - EQF 23:19:26 - 1/15/2003 (17795) (0) ● Re: Catfish - Canie 10:20:06 - 1/12/2003 (17784) (1) ● Re: Catfish - EQF 05:04:06 - 1/14/2003 (17790) (0) |
|