My methodology is also quite different from yours in that instead of using measured fault zone strain data I am using "synthetic strain data" which is based largely on the positions of the sun and the moon in the sky and partly on the theoretical locations of ocean and Solid Earth Tide crests and troughs. And I believe that one of the best indicators that this approach is working is the fact that it is enabling me to generate increasingly accurate earthquake forecasts. For example, when asked about a possible earthquake in India, on August 1 I circulated e-mail notes proposing that one might be about to occur near where the following one occurred and that one of the first high probability dates for it would be August 5.

2001/02/08 16:54:40 23.63N 70.28E 10.0 4.9M GUJARAT, INDIA
(NEIS data)

I believe that Shan has already confirmed in this bulletin board that he saw that forecast. I could also ask a number of other people to confirm that they saw it.

On August 5 the following strongly felt earthquake occurred:

2003/08/05 11:08:02 23.68N 70.53E 10.0 5.0 SOUTHERN INDIA

The location of that 2001 earthquake was the only one that I identified as a possible location in India for an earthquake. And I do not see how anyone could come any closer than that with a prediction. The day, location, and how strongly it would be felt were exactly right in my opinion.

The first point is, even though I am using synthesized data, this approach works. And the second point is to ask why any of you believe that you can speak with authority regarding this approach when I cannot recall ever seeing any evidence that you have any understanding of how it works.

The third point is, no one else appears to be presently doing very much with regard to discussing earthquake forecasting and triggering theories on this bulletin board. The work that I am doing is at the forefront of this area of science if only because no one else that I have ever heard about is using synthesized strain data as I am. So, why not join in the discussions instead of constantly trying to pick things apart? You are in my opinion wasting my time and any chance that you might have to discuss this advanced technology. It may be quite different than what you are used to discussing. But life would be boring if everyone did exactly the same thing. Besides, as I have said, I appear to be having quite a bit of success with this approach. And I am not seeing anyone else have much success with other approaches.

Finally, Don, if your friend Petra has decided to stop posting to this board then before she drifts completely away why don't you both prepare a summarized report on what you believe you have discovered regarding "Ear Tones" and post it here?

If you wish to take a step aimed at getting credit for the effort you might generate a printed copy of the report and register it with the U.S. Copyright Office. It does not cost that much, something like $30. You can download the necessary forms from a government Web site, print them out, and mail them in. I myself own several copyrights like that.

My present efforts are focused on working with people at the international level with regard to getting organized forecasting programs developed. And I am trying to get information regarding my Wave Chart technology etc. finalized for presentation to a group of earthquake scientists in another country. But there are people who would like to hear more about Ear Tones including some research personnel with whom I am talking. One project we have been discussing has to do with some formal studies at a research lab regarding this subject matter. But such an effort is unfortunately presently far off on a distant "back burner."