Hi Russell,

I don't to want to dissect your post, but I'm confused as to why you posted an article about tinnitus if you have ear tones yourself. So I'm wondering, do you think you have tinnitus? Or do you have it? Or do you think you tinnitus is an ear tone? Maybe you could describe what you're hearing and then I can try to figure out if you have tinnitus or are hearing ear tones? I'm not a doctor either, but I have a whole group of people who hear ear tones and they know they aren't tinnitus, so I've learned alot over the years.

Here's part of your original post where you made a conclusion that I must be psychic...

I think when you combine this medical understanding with the apparent subjective nature of the EQ ear tone experience, the lack of instrumental recordings of the phenomenon, and the non existent (to date) substantive record of ear tone to predicted EQ - one has to decide that Petra's theory falls more within the realm of the psychic than the scientific.

People who have no psychic skills are not qualified to determine if anything is a psychic experience; so unless you are and you have ear tones as a result of that, then you're wholly different that the rest of us. And I do know what things are psychic because I undertook that as a research project for twenty years. So it is not foreign to me at all. My basis for the research was to determine if spirituality and the psychic experience had a use in everyday life. I do not wish to cite the outcome because it would take me about three months to explain it and I don't think people here would be interested and I honestly don't have the time for it. Actually, I was writing something far more interesting than this a little bit ago; but I felt I needed to be a little more giving of my time to you.

Let's focus on Ear Tone Research because it is comprised of two parts. I sense that you missed Part A and that's really the most important part. We have been able to hear something and determine by precise measurement that in X location a quake of some size should arrive. In the majority we have accomplished this task.

Part B: The Prediction is the bonus. Essentially I have to take the information given to me, or by my own and try to make the components of a prediction and put them together: time, location, magnitude. This part needs work; but Part A on its own can warn and entire country with a group of volunteers and they will never need a prediction to do so. All one has to know that if they hear a sound that is hugely loud and feels like a freight train going into your ear, you had better get out of the way at X spot based on seconds of ear tone counted. That's pretty straightforward.

So let's imagine you live in some place in Southern, CA and you hear an 11 second tone and that's measures into my front yard and you tell me its huge sound. Boy, I guess I would do my last minute preparedness steps, get the breakables off the shelf and be ready. That's what we would use it for and have numerous times. We don't need someone to give us a formal prediction. Scientists need it because that's their thing, so I'm trying to take what I have and make it suitable for them.

For years I wanted to point to X spot and say, Look There. Because I thought it might help them to look at their instruments and see if the scientific side of this could work in harmony with ear tone sounds. But Parkfield proved it can't, or at least some part of the time. The quakes at Moraga are the exception because the Ohlone PBO Station has been very active as well as ear tone reports indicating earthquakes there, so they are in harmony with each other. In a more perfect world, this would happen far more often.

Russell, all I can do is ask you to understand Part A. If you can get a grasp on that part of the research and know that Part B, the prediction is a bonus, then the emphasis on Part B will not be so great because it is the last part and the least important. In our current ear tone network anyone who is involved has their early warning system already on their computer, they needn't ask anyone to tell them, they can see if for themselves.

Tomorrow I'm doing a new mapping for the most recent period and I'll be posting it on the Internet site so you can have a look at it and take a moment to examine it and you'll see how it works. However, if you would like to test your own ear tones, I would be more than willing to accommodate you.

Here's what I need from you:

Date of occurrence, approximate time, which ear, length of the tone by counting 1001, 1002 and so forth. But when the sound begins to step down, its called a trailing sound and you stop counting from the original louder sound and count the seconds in the trailing sound. If you have a sense of your ear blocking before a tone occurs I need to know that along with a description of the tone. How Loud? On a scale from 1-5 with one being just audible and 5 the loudest sound you've ever heard, like this 2/5. And lastly, was it of medium intensity, scratchy, electrical, dull, sounds like the water or whatever. Those are the components of ear tone reports.

If you want everyone here to share in your experience we can do that. I'll put up another page on my web site for your own personal map and reports. We can take it for a test drive.

Please let me know if that is amenable to you and we can get things set up. How's that?

Petra