I need to remark on one thing - when you say you need the recipient's interpretation of the ear tone I have to disagree.

I get ear tones and anyone interested in eartone research needs nothing further from me except what data is already being gathered by the eartone list - My 'opinion' on my own eartones is really worthless (especially since I'm still on the fence as to their significance in respect to earthquakes) - If there is a link between tones and quakes and you think its a simple time-distance relationship then others should have the same time-distance relationship. You also think the frequency of the tone gives a clue about what type of rock will be fracturing.

If this is a real precursor then the only qualification is that there are people capable of hearing this tone and they should be able to describe it - their opinion about it is meaningless. Otherwise we're into the psychic arena and a whole different area altogether.

In a similar situation there is a woman well known for her headaches that she just relates to a well known geologist up in the northern cal area - the woman herself didn't come up with the link to quakes and she's not the one convinced that they are related to quakes - so in this instance her opinion about her own headaches again is meaningless - but some people believe that her headaches predict quakes (I personally think the probablilities of her headache windows should be computed as I think they must be a 1 in 2 or 3 possibility which is a bit on the high side)

So again - if eartones are a precursor then what is there to understand about the tone recipient that isn't already in their data?

Canie