EQF;

I just can't let this go by.

> First, it appears to me that your post is referring to me as a nonscientist. And that would be the most easily disproved inaccuracy. It would also tell any other science professional that everything else in your post could very well be equally inaccurate. And your entire post should probably safely be automatically ignored.

Yes it could be easily disproved. I invite you to do so by presenting your credentials.

> In fact, for many years I have been working with two degrees in the physical sciences. Each was awarded by a highly regarded U.S. university.

So you say. Proof?

> I am an experienced professional analyst and also regard myself as being an effective disaster mitigation worker and have formal technical publications and registered copyrights going back years in time. I have also worked as an editor and creative material contributor for two books related to earthquake forecasting and research. One was published years ago. We are still waiting for the second one to go to press. My name is also in the introduction sections of both books.

Again, proof? References?

> Second, your post just states as a fact that my post is of no use. But there is no reference to what you are referring to. So you are basically telling everyone that they should just accept your personal word for the fact that there is nothing of value in my post. And that sounds like what the oil companies told us all before that disaster in the Gulf of Mexico and what the nuclear power plant people probably told government officials and the general public in Japan:

> “Trust us. We know what we are doing. And we are looking out for your interests.”

I'll give you partial credit on that. Partial because we know who Chris is but we also know how honest oil companies have been.

> The information in my post is straightforward science involving pattern analysis.

LOL! It sounds more like sheer speculation and excuses.

> The EM Signal related line peaks that appeared on my chart around 179 W had to have been pointing to the approach of something. And analyses of those Alaska and Papua New Guinea earthquakes that occurred later in time showed that their line peak structures were similar to the line peak structures observed on quite a few of my chart Time Window lines for dates before the earthquakes occurred.

Not surprising since both are based on past quakes in that area.

> The conclusion is simple. If I could detect those EM Signals, and if they were in fact pointing to the approach of the Alaska earthquake then its fault zone must have been generating signals for months before the earthquake occurred.

Entirely possible IF the signals have anything to do with faults. Which you have not demonstrated.

> And, if so then there should have been some easily observed precursors in the area where the earthquake occurred such as unusual behavior by pet and wild animals in that area. And, the only way that people in that area might know that they should think back and try to remember if they observed anything like that is for someone such as myself to post a note in some public forum discussing the subject.

Also speculative at best since no such precursory activity has been shown reliable.

> If you don’t understand something in the data I am presenting then why not try asking for an explanation instead of simply attacking the material because you don’t understand it?

Probably because you never give any.

Roger