Hi All,

My very short list of predictions has gone to Roger for evaluation, all of 6 of them. I was truly surprised there weren't more. One thing that I came to realize is that I have been trying so hard to please the scientific audience I may have sequestered more information than I should have.

Some readers here do not really understand how research for ear tone theory is developed, so I'm going to say a few words about it and then I'm going to make some real changes in the number of reports I issue and how they get issued. Suppressing information in the big picture makes it appear as though there are little results, when in fact there is plenty. I keep the ear tone reports and matches to those reports in an e-mail folder. Tonight I found 295 e-mails regarding those for 2004. That should provide everyone an understanding that we don't sit idle, but are busy all of the time and those reports are for three individuals.

Our primary goal is to find a location for a sound we hear, called an ear tone. The second part is to try to assess by the volume of the sound we hear, how large this earthquake might be and the third part is assigning a window of time when we think it might happen. This converts in earthquake prediction to date, magnitude and location.

Locating an epicenter for the most part is not as difficult as it used to be because we as a group have a general idea where faults are located and by pattern recognition of sound we probably have heard the same sound more than once. Our most difficult area is Southern CA because a ten second tone can be from the beach to Coso or Palm Springs, for instance. Once we hit 13 seconds and beyond we are into Mexico and that's really simple. The time element we assigned is 10 days, but Southern, CA quakes often come in at the end, Northern, CA is usually a few days and the Bay Area is often hours to 3 days. There are variables.

Our single most important discovery this year was when we repeatedly as a group had ear tones for the Mendocino Triple Junction at 6 to 7 seconds and no earthquakes arrived. This occurred during the latter part of October and into early November. We have confirmed by seismograph readings and ULF that this area had been experiencing episodic tremors. If we had issued predictions based on those ear tones you would have easily decided we had all gone nuts or tone dead. So here we had a variation in what the Earth was doing and we detected it and fortunately in a short period of time found out what it was. I hope this is not an issue in 2005, but if it becomes one, I know now where to get the information to confirm it.

What I have in mind is going back to something we did as a group here on Earthwaves in the early days. We made our reports and looked for matching earthquakes by location recognition or gave our best guess as to where we think a quake may arrive. It may not be so tight as trying to fit a round object into a square hole, but if this change does not occur, then we will lose the best of what we can share or demonstrate.

I'm going to ask for a little leniency in this process because it may not look exactly like the predictions you've seen of late, but in time you'll see it has perhaps more potential than you've been seeing.

Whatever opinion Roger has I will be willing to accept it. I trust him, I respect his opinions and I know he is a class act in the work he does. I just wish I had been a little more giving this past year so he would have more to work with.

Petra