[Skywise]

You'll have to forgive any impression of accusing you of improprieties with your data. It's nothing personal. Just the nature of scientific debate. Science works backwards in a way, in that a theory is proven right by failure to prove it wrong. So what happens is everyone jumps on the theory and tries to tear it apart. After enough failures to tear it apart, it then becomes accepted as likely correct.

I think the best solution at the moment, Duffy, is to just post as soon as possible when you have one of these signals you think might be a precursor to a quake. I recommend posting those messages to the prediction forum as the most appropriate place, even though they're not predictions per se. There are forms on that forum for prediction details, but you do not have to use them to post a message there.

I do have a question. In your expanded description of your detection process you make mention of a "hypothetical subterranean EM signal". I'm a little confused by the subterranean part. I thought you were detecting changes to the ionosphere. Did I misunderstand something?

Brian