Hi Petra:

Did Ken in Santa Cruz ever release his info. to anybody (or was he a "stealth" scientist:) ?

Yes perhaps the ability to narrow down to a specific area is limited by the wave frequency physics...so maybe just picking a genereal bearing from your location is the "best that it gets" using just one "human receiver".... Of course this really gets the scientific persnickety people all warped out of shape as they like to apply a boundary area for comparison to background quake rates (to see if your prediction is significant). Since no boundary is supplied they move on to other things which may be "proven" using stats. That's not to say that the ability to predict a quake is not present...just not in a format conducive to study.

Regarding the Olympia quake and your 2 1/2 hr lead time warning...this time interval is consistent with what the Elfrad group has found using ULF (see link) presuming that you have not already seen this (unlikely given your association with Don "the 'internet data' missile seeker" Eck:)

Regarding EQ tracker, I believe my point was missed. Put another way, I suggested that co-located ULF (not ELF) ground probes would likely also register the presence of concurrent ULF. This would then suggest that the detected ELF is actually higher harmonic frequencies of the main power ULF signl(s). These ULF wavelengths can span the globe and then some.... So my suggestion was that say a 0.5 Hz ULF wave (I don't know the max frequency which defines ULF) had a 2 x 0.5 = 1 Hz harmonic frequency which was detected by the EQ Tracker ELF detector. In other words, it may be indirectly detecting ULF (globe spanning ULF waves) by detecting the higher harmonics. (Somebody may consider checking this out since I believe there are non-internet accessible ULF sensors in the area). Put yet another way...the EQ Tracker's may be giving indications of very distant events (~ > 1000 kms) on some occasions) when considering the higher hamronics of ULF waves.

Also, not that I'm on your case, but to "prove" that you actually heard the Olympia event before hand would require a larger data set and a statistical analysis of it...else more kiniption (?) fits by some people reading the claim....

Regarding my look see...I may revisit this at a later time...though I suspect other info. may pre-empt the need.

BTW, I have another mechansim as to how you may be "perceiving" these ELF/ULF waves which may suggest why only one "ear" is activated or another...but that'll be a little later on....

Main point is that ear tone people can bring a qualitative measure to an ELF/ULF detected (by instrument) wave which may enhance the value of the information received (as well as increase the SNR for real oncoming eq. events). This point is most frequently not appreciated by those who claim that a gazillion things cause people to "hear tones" (most of which are symptomatic of anything but earthquakes...as their "let's sweep this under the rug quickly" claims go....)

Anyway, Mary Maya's qualitative logs are quite a key to further study in this area. Frequency Band Width filters may remove this qualitative aspect when collected by instruments. And Yes...the true value of any potential info. from this source is in "R & D" and needs further work.

It appears that no one is pursuing this at this time.

It sounds like your new house has also brightened your spirits...though being so close to a fault (how far away is it?) may be straining at times....

• Charlie Plyler's ELFRAD Precursor link