Hello Petra:

It's not true that all science is pseudoscience until it's proven. Science advances primarily through theories and hypotheses that are very scientific even when they are unproven because they conforms to or extends what we know about the laws of the physical world. Pseudoscience doesn't have a scientific foundation (in other words, it violates scientific principles or known physical laws). While it's true that pseudoscience could become science if it were proven, it is exceedingly unlikely because it would violate known scientific principles.

Before you overwhelm me with examples of scientific errors, oversights, and omissions, let me first acknowledge that there is bad science as well as pseudoscience. Bad science can't be used as an example of a pseudoscience becoming part of the foundations of science. Examples of pseudoscience are Creationism, belief in perpetual motion, astrology, phrenology, dream prophets, psychics, aura-ologists, numerologists, Scientology, and many, many other ologies mostly designed to hoodwink the public in some manner. There is zero chance that any of those mentioned will ever be anything but psuedoscience. I can't say that with certainty about sensitives, because there is some possibility that some unknown precursor will be found to have some small affect on the human body, but I can say that there is zero chance that your ear tones are caused by earthquakes several hundred miles away.

What you claim to be able to do is pseudoscience because there is no scientific foundation on which to infer that your physical symptoms are related to earthquakes. What you are claiming to be able to do requires extraordinary senses that are well beyond what we know about human capabilities. There is absolutely no scientific basis for you to make the assumption that you are hearing earthquakes hundreds of miles away before they occur.

I am probably wasting my time with this because my experience is that sensitives, psychics, etc., basically put their faith in their belief in pseudoscience, and they are as dogmatic in those beliefs as they are in their belief in God. But looking at it from a scientific perspective, there is nothing in your message that would justify your belief scientifically. You seem to be saying that because we can hear and because earthquakes make noises, therefore you can hear earthquakes hundred of miles away before they occur. Don't you realize that you have leaped several chasms in order to link your presumed sensitivity to what is currently known by science to be possible in the physical world?

You have made a number of statements about human so=called sensitivity to earthquakes--mostly your statements are totally unsupported but they are presented as if they were fact. I challenge you to prove any of the following statements (indicates my comments:

-----------
Charlotte King hears ultra low frequency sounds and can hear submarines out at sea. (Show the scientific proof--no anecdotes please.

I hear high frequency sounds. (prove you can hear anything over 20 kilocycles.
What I believe I am hearing are rocks shearing away before earthquakes happen. (I can't argue with your beliefs, but I can challenge you to prove that you have a good reason for that belief.

Though, now I'm starting to think its possible, to hear this shearing noise without a resulting quake. Its just that there hasn't been adequate shearing for a quake to occur. (same as above.

If there are sufficient earthquakes occurring on a regular basis at certain locations, in time you can tell exactly where the tone comes from. You also need to have the time to do the homework and keep track of the sounds and see where the quakes arrive. (although your logic is correct, I challenge your inference and the implication that you have done this.

Ear tone sensitives hear some of the following:
High pitched sounds, those that come from granite
Scratchy sounds, these come from volcanoes & geysers
A sound like your head was underwater, is an offshore earthquake
Many have a deaf ear sensation that is sometimes followed by a tone
Directions come from each one's personal location and their own body signal systems.
Usually the longer the sound, the greater the distance. Louder sounds are larger earthquakes, however, if you have a very long sound, it means a very large quake at considerable distance can be expected. (prove any of that.

Today, there is no equipment to monitor high frequency sounds that I hear. (prove it.

I've learned a lot about these sounds, but when you have a full life, you don't do the work it takes to keep on top of these constant variety of noises. (I challenge you to prove that you have done anything scientific at all to try to check on your sensitivity claims.

If you'll read the post below to Lynette, you'll learn a lot about ear tones. You can only judge the location by studying where the earthquakes arrive after you've hear the tone. The timing is tricky though. Like I heard Seattle 2 1/2 hours before, that's the shortest time ever. The next shortest was 11 hours for the geysers to deliver a 3.8. Most of the others come between 48 hours and ten days. (I challenge you to prove that any of those tones were caused by any of those earthquakes.

For me, my left ear is north and the right ear south and east. (I challenge you to prove that you have any directional sensitivity whatsoever.

Most sensitives have a long list of other symptoms other than tones. Before Bolinas I had this nodding off symptom, like I could hardly stay away in the afternoon and later a head ache in the lower right side of my head. Before the Rodgers Creek I had a really bad feeling pass through me. Of course, vertigo is high on the list as well. For others, its a variety of pain related symptoms, especially head aches and some report stabbing and jabbing pains. (Prove that you have done anything whatsoever to prove that any of those symptoms were related to earthquakes.

But the worst, and all sensitives share this, is the "sad syndrome." For no apparent reason, before a really bad earthquake where there will be loss of life, its as though it already happened and you feel like its your own family member that died. It comes over you like a cloud descending and then leaves hours later in an instant. (prove that you have established a link of your emotions to earthquakes.

I am the only person I know of who has actually studied ear tone senstives and have profiled their lives and looked to see what they have in common. Two things emerged at the top of the list: a. they are religious or very spiritual and b. they love to garden and enjoy the out of doors. IE: they are attunded to the earth. (prove that you have studied ear-tone sensitives and show us the profiles.

---------------
Although you probably think I am antagonistic, I'm not trying to put you down--I'm just trying to show you that you don't have the facts you think you have about sensitives, and neither does anybody else because there is no foundation in science for humans sensing earthquakes, especially prior to their occurrence.

Specific comments on your message:

There have been many large earthquakes. There have been no reports of survivors hearing anything unusual prior to the actual event. If there were large electrical discharges, our current meters could record them, but they have not. Even if there were large discharges that humans could hear, it would be highly unlikely that anyone could hear them several hundreds of miles from an earthquake. If that were possible, it is likely that it would shatter the eardrums if it someone were at the epicenter of the earthquake. It is very unlikely that the electrical discharge has any affect on humans except on an imperceptible scale.

You cannot assume that just because scientists have placed a microphone in the caldera of a volcano that humans can hear earthquakes hours or days before it happens hundreds of miles away.

You stated, "Let us imagine a day, when very sensitive microphones were placed on an active fault system and they were monitored for proof of this theory. That's my goal. Real field study." Fine. I have no argument with that. The problem is that you are presenting your claims as if they were already proven. They aren't. They are neither logical nor likely.

Don in Berkeley