Hi Canie,

I think you may be confusing a conversation you had with Don. I haven't ever spoken with you on the telephone. I'm have an almost photographic memory and from all of the nice things people have said about you, I think I would no doubt recall it immediately.

I have never divulged what Charlotte King said to me, except to Don and she told him the same thing she told me. So its possible he may have said that Charlotte told both of us something and since my name was brought up in the conversation, you may have thought I said it. But I didn't.

I'm very cautious about slandering someone else and this is not something I would do. I feel it is important not to provide third hand information unless it can be documented and that is why I suggested you contact them and hear what they have to say from their lips to your ears.

I do believe you probably missed at least two occasions where Cathryn and I both had posts with EQF and both of us expressed to him that we felt we were insulted and requested his apology, but he never responded.

I am regretful that EQF has not found the success that he wishes to achieve and I do feel empathetic. It seems that if he has ear tones and he gets reports from his own group of people, then he really shouldn't need more than 3 people for a research study. He just has to develop a program and find out what works or doesn't work for this group.

In part of my program I actually learned that in my distance calculations that this same distance method was already in use in another scientific prediction program. Neither the scientists involved in the use of this distance measurement understand why this distance is a constant, nor have I. But we all agree that the distance calculation is correct, we just don't know why.

Ear tones are quite complex in origin and it takes time to break down the sounds into groups and that in itself took some time to understand. But having taken geology gave me the answer, yet in application it took a lot more data to put the two together.

The good news is that it does not require a computer program to determine where earthquakes may occur as it is very, very simple. But I have yet to answer my final question and that I wish to leave to the group, myself, or the scientific community to solve.

I know you must be aware that scientists themselves are quite secretive about their work and they never discuss current projects with anyone. They do it for the simple reason that they want to solve the puzzle and they don't wish to have their work claimed by another when they have invested so much time and effort to work on their research.

My/Our ear tone program is a group effort, and we as a whole do quite well together, and the time everyone contributes and the method of reporting has been excellent. I can't thank the contributors to this program enough for the work they do, though, highly inconvenient at times. Don spends a lot of time with the data in collecting it, sorting through it, looking for other corresponding physical data to support our suppositions and he too has made a considerable effort to be of assistance to this possible prediction method.

Years ago when Ken was here he was keeping score cards on all of us and he told us to be more precise and that is one of the issues that we had to work through. It is not just reporting that somebody heard a tone, it is far more detailed. It is from those details that other parts of the program have been developed and finally understanding where epicenters should be, made all the difference in the world.

So now we must explain this phenomena. Why does it work sometimes, but not all of the time? We know where the epicenter must be, so we know if the tone is a false alarm or a hit. This was an important discovery all on its own. It does not ever vary more than 20kms.

While there are so many people who have the ear tone experience having too many people involved in this type of research is not beneficial. It becomes to labor intensive. So a few members is really all we want at this time. If we add more later, they would have to be in different areas that would be quite some distance from our current participants. Less is better in this case.

Charlotte King is unique unto herself. She has been the only person physically and mentally tested for her skills and has passed with flying colors. She is in contact with a group of scientists she works with and they have a good sense of cooperation with her. So in her own right she has accomplished her goal. But what she hears and what I hear is not the same at all.

Charlotte has chosen for her own needs to charge for her predictions. I never will. If I can get it down to a finer science I would give it to someone who can take it to the next level, but again, it would be where no money could be generated from it. It is a gift and has no monetary value.

My efforts in all the various interests I have in advancing safety or improvement in the lives of others I have worked on or will work on in the future will only be in a humanitarian sense and never for profit. It is a commitment to furthering positivity for the path of mankind, I'm just a helper along the way.

Petra