EQF;

That's a nice explanation of your method but it doesn't explain the nature of the EM signals.

I hope you aren't recalculating the sublunar points for the 40k quakes each time?

Last night I made a program which plots the number of quakes at each degree of longitude for consecutive 30 day increments. It looks remarkably like your graphs and it only takes a few seconds to process the entire Centennial catalog since 1973.

I didn't say your graphs were random. I said the correlation between quakes and peaks is random, based on simple observation. You could prove me wrong by calculating the coefficient of correlation between quakes and peaks. A large positive result would be much more convincing.

IF there is one....

Roger