EQF;

> I have said the following again and again. These data are highly complex. And you need to develop a better understanding of them if you want to comment on their accuracy.

Pretty hard to do when you keep it all secret.

> There are two different types of analyses that are presently being discussed here at length. You don’t appear to me to be aware of the distinction between them.

It doesn't matter. I'm examining what you claim based on your graph.

> 1. The Earthquake Warnings and Advisories I am posting are based on EM Signals that are being detected on a daily basis. When especially strong signals are detected I might circulate a specific advisory or warning. It states that a fault zone has finally reached its limit of strain absorption and it is about to fracture.

I haven't addressed those. They're too vague to evaluate.

> 2. The Year Charts and my Chart A forecast charts are showing long term trends. So people can keep checking them. And when they see that there is a line peak group that persists for months at some longitude on the charts then they can go looking for some type of strain that has been building in a fault zone somewhere over a long period of time. Those chart line peaks pointing to that February 6, 2013 Solomon Island earthquake are a perfect example of how well this long term type of forecasting analyses can work. And I believe that those data could be combined with Pavel Kalenda’s ground tilt data to get an even clearer picture of what is taking place deep in the ground.

That's what I'm examining. You made a specific claim about the graph and I pointed out the error of your statement.

> The discussions I am having here are a running commentary on the efforts I am making each day and week to improve the accuracy and usefulness of those three forecasting data analyses methods. I don’t have time to discuss any of the others. And the Year Charts - Chart A forecasting method is being discussed at length now only because I recently finally got my forecasting computer programs running again near full speed.

That's fine. I hope you continue, just as I will continue to comment on your results.

> So, you need to remember that two entirely different data analyses methods are now being discussed at length here, and once and a while, one of those other of the half dozen analyses methods such as that third one.

Not a problem. I don't care HOW you make predictions, I only care about the results.

> As I stated, this is all very complex. But if it were easy, everyone would be doing these types of analyses. And they really should be.

I agree. More for me to do!

Roger