Re: EQF: an alternate solution
Posted by Petra Challus on October 17, 2003 at 19:17:15:

Hi Canie,

I would suggest you contact Charlotte King and Diane Pope regarding EQF and ear tones and listen to what they have to say. Please be sure to afford them the various initials or names he uses as they may know him under something other than EQF, as that is a relatively new alias.

Yes, you're right, I did suggest to my "buddies" that they not post here because information in the hands of someone who does not understand how to use it and one who might possibly go public with "misinformation" in the end, could have proved more detrimental, than continued study by those who do understand it and keep it quiet. Today several people report to Don. I never ever see those reports so I am not influenced by them, nor is anyone else in the group.

In January of this year we had 56 hits in the group out of approximately 65 predictions from ear tones. That's a fairly substantial success rate, however, it is a long ways from perfect and not reliable from month to month. It truly is not ready for public consumption and in the event it can ever be, I would simply hand the data to a scientist and let him/her use it for research and possibly papering. I can only take it so far and then it will have to go to a scientist.

In the future should something of a large nature seem as though it was going to happen I would give it to Lowell and his group to do what they wished with it. He has proven time and again to be trustworthy and is one of the few scientists who doesn't treat me like a psycho because I have the ear tone experience. If he choses to keep it quiet, that will be his call and not mine. I trust him fully in these matters.

I'm sorry you have taken exception to my responses to EQF, however, I expect no less from anyone else than I deliver myself. If I say I can predict an earthquake using a given method, I just do it. I don't talk about doing it, I don't boast that I can do it, I just do it. I can be right or wrong, but that isn't important, it is just a demonstration of a use of a given method. I fully admit my method is not fool proof, but I have demonstrated it here, time and again.

Just looking through the archives here I glanced over several predictions I made with correct results. They are there to look at anytime anyone wishes to review them. But if you read the posts made by EQF, you will find that at no time has he ever predicted an earthquake HERE in advance of the event, using any method. I'm not harrassing him, I just asking for the proof. Nothing more, nothing less. Every time I ask him for proof he gets angry, complains to you and I have to sit in the dog house.

He says that water heater retrofitting "might" be helpful in the future. There is no might about it. If it is done, it will be helpful. That is the truth.

As for the insults, they have been delivered to both myself and Cathryn and he never has apologized, yet you have never taken him to task for not doing so. Why not?

Petra


Follow Ups:
     ● Re: EQF: an alternate solution - EQF  15:30:35 - 10/18/2003  (19766)  (0)
     ● Re: EQF: an alternate solution - Canie  23:22:58 - 10/17/2003  (19754)  (1)
        ● Re: EQF: an alternate solution - Petra Challus  00:21:05 - 10/18/2003  (19756)  (1)
           ● detail: scientists only secretive to a point - John Vidale  08:04:50 - 10/18/2003  (19762)  (1)
              ● Re: detail: scientists only secretive to a point - Petra Challus  09:33:25 - 10/18/2003  (19764)  (2)
                 ● not entirely - John Vidale  13:45:49 - 10/22/2003  (19830)  (0)
                 ● another detail: I'd never call the press myself - John Vidale  18:29:18 - 10/18/2003  (19774)  (1)
                    ● Re: another detail: I'd never call the press myself - Cathryn  19:55:10 - 10/18/2003  (19779)  (0)