I hear you, but I'm not sure I really have it all that backward. Petra makes all kinds of claims about the ear tone theory. She says she can measure distance, zero in on precise locations, and predict quakes. But when pressed for an answer about the evidence of the wave which apparently causes the ear tones in the first place, she can't come through.

So, really what I am asking for IS evidence. Evidence that can be objectively analyzed as a basis for all the other claims she makes. So far, I've only read nonsense about being able to tell that Palm Springs is making noise.

What has Petra done to show that the waves she talks about even exist? How can she be taken seriously when she makes such definitive claims without evidence of the basis for all her other claims. Without establishing a foundation for the mechanisms by which she and other might recieve the ear tone how can this idea ever move from the realm of the subjective?

As I've said in earlier postings; she gets and ear tone and she says its from Mexico and its 5.5 to a 7.0. Why is that "sound" being connected to an earthquake? What is that leap based on? I heard a sound, there was an earthquake and so the earthquake must have caused the sound? There were MILLIONS of things that happened at the precise moment the earthquake happened. Why isn't the ear tone connected to any one of those things? She hasn't answered even that one simple question.

There is already a medically established and wide believed explanation that explains ear tones. That explanation is being categorically ignored in favor of connecting the tones to earthquakes yet there isnt one SHRED of evidence so far to justify that connection.

There are those of us who might be interested in the ear tone theory - even IF it were solidly a psychic phenomenon. I believe people can be and are sensitive to things. There are things that are unexplainable in the world. Yet Petra acts as though this ethereal idea is grounded in hard fact. Its not, Roger, no matter how much she wishes it so.

Sadly Petra's repeated unverifiable and unsubstantiated claims of fact and success make it difficult to take her and the theory seriously.

Russell