Hi Petra:

Maybe I'm wading into a swamp here ...but

ref: "We have a markedly different interpretation of the location of future epicenters and in that difference, we have no common ground."

+ This clear separation of methods of interpreting earthquakes suggests that EQF's "vague" earthquake warnings have little to do with your own interpretations of any presumed resulting earthquake. In addition, I can't see you laying claim to such vague earthquake predictions (ie. EQF's) as you realize that they have limited utility (with the exception that it might cue a search for precursors in the suspected target region).

+That being the case, I don't see how the case your making against him adds up too well (with the exception that he may have used your tone entry that was coded as to source in the tone log). Since the logs were coded, how would he know it was your tone ? Of course, now that you have stated your position...everybody knows.

+BTW, I had always assumed that the purpose of the ear tone log was to create a record of ear tones so that a database could be built up to facilitate study and comprehension of this phenomena...especially as it relates to trying to accurately predict future quakes.

Anyway, I'm glad this clarification has been made. This clears the air as to what the intent of the log was / is.

Just my 2cents worth.

BTW, I hope Petra that if you get a tone signal indicative of a large quake (i.e. Mag > 6.0 or so) that you will violate your plan of stealth entries with LW so that others may exploit the information for hazard mitigation. Of course, I think everybody here will give you full credit for your efforts (even just the tone without your location interpretation). It would be a shame if there is something to this phenomena that is worthwhile but the information gets out much later than it could have otherwise.