Hello Dennis,

There is only one way to conclusively predict earthquakes and it is by being "site specific." While you may not think that people who claim they hear earthquakes do indeed hear them, then the only proof is to instrument some faults and test the results. This is on my "to do" one day list. Even I can't claim conclusively that we do, but we seem to. The greatest problem is living in an area that has so many faults, you get sounds from every area and the interpretation of placing a location with that sound is difficult at times and easier at others. You've seen a number of "hearing sensitive" people and know their results are better than mine. But so far, I'm the only one who wants to take this anomoly and put it to the instrumental test to prove its existence or otherwise.

Now, let's take a look at your method. You have an instrument and you say "if" an earthquake is coming it could be 3.0 if close to 6.0 if far away. What benefit does that add to the prediction puzzle? You get a hit no matter what shows up or where it shows up.

I like to keep it simple. If one is looking to predict an earthquake for safety reasons, then you need to be very close to the epicenter if one is to move out emergency equipment, or warn the public. Its a lofty goal to ever get to this point, but its what I'd like to see one day.

I'm not here for your benefit and whether you like me or not, is not important. But I think you know that I was always supportive of your participation, just as I am to everyone else. We could argue methodology until doomsday, but when any of us, if ever, find something that works, can be proven and has repeated results, that's when you have the party.

But no on gets there alone, its a group event. It takes time, shoulder to the wheel, dedication that is unfaultering and a desire to see people live. That's what I'm looking for in anyone I work with and when its less than or not going according to scientific protocols, then its not for me.

Pat