Which is why the syzygy board is such a waste of time. The suppositions that ear tones are a sufficient basis to predict earthquakes is invalid because the necessary work to support the hypothesis has not been done. The predictors are skipping several stages of work that needs to be done to prove a link between ear tones and earthquakes. Take Berkland's notion that a dog with a willow stem caught in it's mouth was "clear evidence" that it had predicted an earthquake. In drawing that conclusion, Berkland assumed that the willow stem contained an aspirin-like substance; he assumed that the dog had a headache; he assumed that the dog knew the willow stem contained aspirin; he assumed that the dog knew that the aspirin could stop a headache; he assumed that the dog had intentionally tried to eat the willow stick to treat the headache; he assumed that the earthquake correlated with the headache; and he assumed that the earthquake that correlated with the dog's headache had caused the headache. Wow! Far out! The problem is that similar leaps of logic to support wild earthquake predictions are routinely made on eq prediction boards without establishing the necessary foundation. To use Roger's metaphor, if you want to chase wild geese in earthquake prediction, then you should first do your homework before you clutter up the boards with worthless predictions.