Petra:
What?
Let me try – for the sake of my own sanity – to address what you’ve written here.

>>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.<<

What? Are asking me why I posted an article about what causes sounds in the ears when I am asking questions about what causes sounds in the ears?

>>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.<<

This makes only slightly more sense to me. You seem to be saying that the ringing well all hear from time to time is NOT what you can an "ear tone". Is that right?

So, if I ask myself "Why do my ears ring?" the answer is either the medically accepted explanation of the phenomenon or it is something else altogther based on my personal preference or a belief in an unsubstantiated energy wave. How can you possibly know the difference?

Whatever the sounds are, you claim to hear things caused by waves put out by potential eq sites. But there isn’t one shred of evidence that such a wave exists. You read what John posted, right? He fairly well eliminated (in his opinion) the idea of the tone producing waves you claim to be the centerpiece of your theory.

But you and others ARE in fact hearing sounds that you connect to earthquakes. So, once you decided to ignore the medical explanation, how did you come to connect the sounds you hear to earthquakes? Why couldn’t you have just as easily connected the sounds to jell-o hardening? The setting of jell-o doesn't propagate energy waves any more than geographic locations that aren’t currently experiencing earthquakes do. However, I can guarantee that when you hear a ringing or a buzzing or a crackling or a hissing in your ears, somewhere jell-o is hardening. Most likely in Palm Springs at any given time of the day.

>>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.<<

Read that once more and note the following: “Petra’s THEORY falls more within realm of the psychic…” Not “PETRA falls within the realm of the psychic” or “Petra must be a psychic” or “I have concluded that Petra is a psychic.” The term “the realm of the psychic” does not refer to YOU, it refers to the broader idea of all things psychic.

>>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.<<

I could have saved you some time. Connecting the sounds you hear to earthquakes when there is no physical mechanism by which an energy wave is produced and subsequently arrives at your house to be heard by you but no one else in the same room with you - is definitely within the realm of the psychic.

>>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.<<

I don’t know what to say here. I am nearly speechless at the idea of a 20 year undertaking that requires three months to explain. I do appreciate your consideration however.

>>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.<<

Here you use the words “precise measurement”. In an earlier posting in this thread you said there are lots of variables. How we feel, what we ate that day, etc. So which is it? Is it a precise measurement or is it a subjective thing tied to countless variables including what one had for breakfast?

>>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.<<

Unless of course, one had beans for lunch in which case we might expect something else altogether and yet still be well served to stay clear of spot X.

>>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.<<

What? I don’t follow this at all. This is the heart of my problem with your claims. How in the wide world can you possibly know with ANY degree of certainty that a sound you perceived for a certain length of time and with certain qualities is pointing to any particular place?

Petra, I’m going to stand on my front lawn and blow raspberries in your general direction at ten second intervals during the dinner hour each night for three months and I want you to find your way to my house and drink a beer with me.

You must stand in your living room, pinpoint my precise location and head out the door. You cannot use a map of any kind. Don can drive because you must keep your eyes closed at all times during your journey. Upon arriving here I will hand a cold one. After we finish the beer, I will fall to my knees, humbly apologize to you and never question anything you say again.

>>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.<<

Again, almost speechless. In the first sentence of that paragraph you point out the difference between the "scientific side" and the "ear tone sounds." In the second sentence you state that "Parkfield proved it can't, or at least some of the time." What exactly does that mean?

>>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.<<

Petra, I think I do grasp part A versus Part B, but can’t for the life of me see how this is remotely connected to a scientifically plausible idea. I believe you are hearing something. I don’t doubt that for a second. But I also think you’ve made an erroneous connection between those “sounds” and earthquakes in a given location.

Further, I don't understand the early warning system at all. Are you saying that there is a program that your members use that takes ear tone reports and actually turns them into warnings? Again, wouldnt it be just as effective at predicting the total weight of hardening jell-o as it would an earthquake since there is no evidence of the energy wave that you say produces the tone in the first place?!

>>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.<<

Do you also want to know what I ate, how much sleep I got, whether I went to a rock or jazz concert the night before or if there was ANY HINT of directionality in the tone?

>>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?<<

Thank you for the offer, but I will let others report their tones as they may. The occasional ringing in my ears is either the result of the various conditions described in my earlier posting - or it is caused by jell-o. Either way, unless you can show me some tangible evidence of the wave which supposedly produces these sounds, my suspicion will always be that whatever I report to you will be answered with “Oh that sounds like a 3.2 located just north of the east west junction of the southern foothills leading to the cloudy headlands bordered by Palm Springs to the north and the equator to the south.”

And when a 3.2 occurs there within 6 weeks, you’ll say “See…I told you so.” And I couldn’t bear the shame of being so wrong.

Anyway Petra, I'll shut up now. You have every right under heaven to pursue this idea - whether I or anyone else supports or agrees with your findings, theories or methodologies.

I know have poked a bit of fun at you. My sarcastic sense of humor often gets the better of me and I hope you weren’t too terribly offended.

Research on, good Petra. Research on! See you here for the beer.

Russell