OK Ara,

Ara said;
"It would be helpful if you stated in what ways they are different, bearing in mind eartone issues."

It is up to those using ear tone predictions to supply further information about the methodology. I have seen nothing from them about fault structure, moment tensor solutions or anything remotely related to geology. Also, if they are in California, an eartone for Kamchatka would originate from under their feet. Unless ofcourse, eartones are atmospheric in nature, which has not been stated by the predictors either. We need more details, and some kind of follow up from these people before any accolades are forth coming.

Ara said;
"If an eartone someone could, for example, divide a 1200 mile stretch into 3 or 4 segments, and consistently predict which segment would next have a >5 quake, based on differing geology or subduction process, that would be interesting. There would be a conceptual underpinning."

You hit the nail on the head Ara. There is no existent conceptual underpinning for the methodology at this time. Eartone predictors have a ton of home work to do. I am willing to assist them, if they so wish. It does have promise, but it must become more technical. (qualitative)

Thanks,
glen