Actually, I wasn't offended.

To be bluntly honest, I found your response to be the typical one of a "pseudoscientific crackpot".

I can understand your aversion to getting in a heated discussion, but hiding information when questions arise is most unscientific. It may not be your intention, but your reaction gives me reason to think you're "full of it". As you yourself said, "I have learned that from many past discussions."

But to be further honest, I really did want to know how these signals are detected simply because I don't know. I wasn't interested in getting in a heated debate about it. I genuinely want to understand what these supposed EM signals are.

.backwards be to logic your find I

Let me give a counter example.

I have climbed Mount Everest. The view is great. The evidence is out there for all to see if you look for it. Prove me wrong.

In fact, I can almost guarantee you 100% that you will never be able to disprove my claim.

The point is, the burden of proof is upon the one making the claim. In my example, that burden is upon me to prove to you that I did in fact climb Mount everest.

In the case of your quake prediction method, the burden of proof is upon you to provide evidence that what you claim is in fact correct.

My question regarding the signals is simply asking for a little information to support your claim.

Your reaction was to basically, effectively, to tell me to prove you wrong.

It is difficult for me, hard as I try, to not conclude that, when faced with such responses, that the claimant is "full of it".

*Apologies for any phrases that were overtly blunt and potentially offensive. This is why I originally refrained from responding because I sometimes find it difficult to explain what I want to say in "politically correct" terms.

Brian