Re: Petra's No Big Deal
Posted by Petra Challus on January 09, 2004 at 18:12:39:

Hi Chris & Don,

Now that I'm off work I've had the opportunity to check my ear tone map, find out where this quake occurred in relationship to the rings on the map, I am positive the quake belongs to the area near Keene. Its fairly close to "Double Mountain" at elevation 7988 just a little bit south of Keene. This area has had lots of small earthquakes in the last year.

I don't wish to go on forever, but I'll explain a little bit about how this works so you may gather an understanding as to how these epicenters & resulting quakes are mapped. The ear tone to the epicenter is 37.5 miles per second of ear tone. I have mapped out a CA/NV map with rings which are 40 miles apart for ease in mapping. The Line 7 ring runs from Point Conception (south of Lompoc) and passes just north of Keene. It is a very gradual curve.

The other quake was way to far north, so I know that quake does not match this particular ear tone. This map has been hugely beneficial in ruling out or including which quakes can be considered matches. The distances of the length of the ear tone combined with the volume level of the ear tones, shows any of our participants where future earthquakes can possibly happen and that some quakes of certain magnitudes cannot be heard at some distances.

I'm not very concerned with this particular ear tone other than to know it does fall within the range we have set parameters for. (no greater than 37.5 miles from the mapped line). It is probably not beyond random chance, but random chance is not a factor we are using anyway.

People who hear ear tones have a lot to contend with because of sounds occurring around them all of the time. For instance today I heard a good strong left ear tone (north) just as I was answering a phone call. Another one followed later with another phone call. There was no possiblility of counting the seconds in either case. I only know #1 was fairly loud and #2 was low to medium. From this I say, we should have some kind of earthquake activity north of me.

Our greatest obstacles are trying to explain why 37.5 miles? And why earthquakes don't always occur when ear tones are heard. The latter is far harder to answer than the former. One case in point is a quake we labeled a long time ago called, "Deep, dark & ugly." Three of us here in the Bay Area heard it on different days and different times within one week. We all believe it's from an area south of Parkfield and that one day there will be a huge earthquake there. Today there are some background sounds out of the science community that supports thoughts of a large earthquake in this area and we heard those sounds long before scientists made any notes on this. I cannot give you a name or a paper on this one.

Don and I have worked for four years to get this far and the other group members have been there too and all of us have worked really hard to make some kind of sense out of this odd anomoly. So when Mr. Know It All attempts to tell us only he knows the right answer, it upsets me greatly because he has yet to define his program to make a prediction that is viable beforehand.

Chris, you CD is in the mail, I hope you love it.

Petra


Follow Ups:
     ● Re: Petra's No Big Deal - chris in sububia  05:18:48 - 1/10/2004  (21025)  (2)
        ● Re: Petra's No Big Deal - Petra  06:18:14 - 1/10/2004  (21027)  (1)
           ● Re: Petra's No Big Deal - Roger Hunter  08:40:49 - 1/10/2004  (21029)  (0)
        ● Chris, there's a problem - Roger Hunter  06:04:41 - 1/10/2004  (21026)  (2)
           ● Re: Chris, there's a problem - chris in suburbia  14:04:27 - 1/10/2004  (21041)  (1)
              ● Re: Chris, there's a problem - Roger Hunter  14:42:08 - 1/10/2004  (21045)  (1)
                 ● Shan's predictions - chris in suburbia  07:10:21 - 1/11/2004  (21056)  (1)
                    ● Re: Shan's predictions - Roger Hunter  07:19:19 - 1/11/2004  (21057)  (0)
           ● Additional information requested - EQF  09:48:42 - 1/10/2004  (21033)  (1)
              ● Re: Additional information requested - Roger Hunter  10:57:58 - 1/10/2004  (21035)  (1)
                 ● Re: Additional information requested - EQF  13:20:59 - 1/10/2004  (21039)  (1)
                    ● Re: Additional information requested - Roger Hunter  14:02:43 - 1/10/2004  (21040)  (1)
                       ● Ok. That helps (NT) - EQF  14:22:02 - 1/10/2004  (21044)  (0)