EQF;

> For the hundredth time at least, you need to develop an understanding of how all of this works if you want to comment on it.

And for the hundredth time let me remind you that I know very well how it works.

> As you are well aware, earthquakes of various magnitudes are occurring constantly around the world.

Absolutely.

> And they are probably all generating the types of EM Signals that I work with. However, some approaching earthquakes generate more, or stronger, or more and stronger signals than others.

In actual fact you don't know what is generating those signals and you have no proof that earthquakes are involved.

> At the moment I believe that I know only some of the rules that govern how these signals are being generated. So a 7 magnitude earthquake might generate quite a few strong signals and another 8 magnitude one will generate very few. That would seem to defy logic. But, those are the rules the earthquakes follow. And one of the most important parts of this research effort involves learning what those rules are.

IMHO they are not involved at all. Determining that should have been the first step, not the last step.

> That Kermadec earthquake you mentioned and also the other fairly powerful ones in various locations undoubtedly generated some of the signals that I have detected lately. But it would be impossible at the moment to circulate warnings for every such earthquake. So, I have developed routines for identifying the approaching earthquakes that are likely to be significant. I then circulate public and private E-mail warnings for them. And my data are still pointing to possible earthquakes in the northwest U.S. and central Asia down to the Indian Ocean areas.

Which still haven't happened. But if they do you still have no proof that the signals are involved.

> For pointing to the less important Kermadec type earthquakes I have my Data.html Web page chart. The hope there is that they will appear on the charts as line peak groups and let people know that those less important earthquakes are approaching. A 6 magnitude one would be pretty low for me to detect strongly for an earthquake outside the North and South American area. An approaching 6 magnitude earthquake in California would probably be a lot easier for me to detect.

> One of the general efforts here is to get governments around the world to start detecting and evaluating these EM Signals on their own. They can use all of my computer programs for free to do the evaluation work they wish. Then they can focus on their local approaching earthquakes. Researchers in Japan wont need to worry about earthquakes occurring in the New Madrid fault zone.

> One of the main problems is that so much resistance has built up over the years in the government and scientific communities that is opposed to the very concept of forecasting earthquakes that trying to convince governments to do that can be extremely difficult. And as I have been saying, I have an unusual way of detecting these EM Signals. It does not tell me very much about their nature. Otherwise I would just publish a paper telling everyone “Do ‘this’ and you will be able to predict all of your earthquakes.”

LOL! That will be the day.

> Ear Tones would be an example of some of these types of signals. They appear to work quite well for forecasting earthquakes if you know how to process the data.

Do you claim to know how to do that? Because all my efforts show there's nothing to it.

> Good luck with getting any U.S. or university scientists to study and use them.

Without proof I would hope not. Funds are too tight to be chasing wild geese.

Roger