About a year ago, I sat with Dr. Andrew Michael of the USGS and asked him for his
honest opinion about an earthquake prediction project. For anyone who does not know
him, that is his job. To investigate earthquake prediction theories and determine if they
work or don’t. He’s extremely intelligent and knows his work very well. My visit with
him was only one part of my search as to why earthquake prediction is not publically
delivered today.

One thing almost no one knows about me until now, is that I was a trained investigator,
and that’s why so often, people confuse their thoughts when I approach them and think
that I am a newspaper reporter and not a budding author. My method of questioning from
my years as an investigator overlap. It also explains why its quite easy for me to learn
scientific theory, because I look and ask questions until I’m absolutely satisfied that I
understand fully the subject at hand.

In investigating the possibility that people who hear earthquakes arriving seems possible
to me, is not only because I to can hear this sound, but sound has a basis in the real
world. If it can be heard by human beings, its source can be traced at some point to a
physical phenomena whether it is from an earthquake fault or some other source. But
from learning scientific methods, it has given me a blueprint as to the method in which to
research this hypothesis further.

In investigating earthquake prediction methods, it is a two fold project. You must not
only look at the theory presented, but the character and integrity of the person who
presents this work. The acceptable standards for earthquake prediction acceptability have
already been written and nothing short of this standard is acceptable at any time.

Today, I am removing my support for the prediction project that Antonio Romino and I
had intended to present. Though he has spent considerable time in working through his
hypothesis, I cannot say it works all of the time. Its better than a number that I have
looked at, however, the time it would take for me to invest in working on it takes time
away from my own project to a degree in which I cannot afford. I have also not been
able to determine to my satisfaction who Antonio Romino is. I have asked a number of
times for him to present me with some verifiable proof that he is a professor of some
academic background and it has not been delivered. I have no personal references to
contact for verification. Though he has told me recently he has given me this information
I have re-read every e-mail I have received and have found I do not have this information.
Thus, until such time as it becomes available and verifiable, I cannot support the project
or its author.

I will leave the door open that upon receipt of the information I may rethink the
possibility of providing my support. I wish to be fair to Romino and let him have the
opportunity to present this for further consideration.

Do not think this is in hindsight, it is not. The FBI often times becomes part of a group to determine further what is or is not happening. Sometimes you have to become part and parcel of something in order to make an educated assessment of what you see. Is it real or otherwise. Today, I'm saying, I do not know. I am on the fence neither saying it is or it isn't. But if you do not know, you cannot support it.

The person I have come to know as Antonio Romino is someone who is very likeable, friendly and says exactly what I want to hear almost all of the time. But not so long ago, I came to realize that through this Internet medium my life is an open book. Anyone could easily write a book about me and they know my strong points and weak ones as well. Trust only goes so far. I am the real thing, a woman who lives in Petaluma, has a community standing and no less than 1000 people in my fair city could verify I am who I say I am. I rather like it that way.

Still looking for perfection along the Rodgers Creek Fault, Pat Thompson in Petaluma, CA.