In my opinion you are making a lot of assumptions that are not accurate. And as a result your conclusions are not accurate. But, I don’t intend to get into an extended argument about this. Roger is being helpful. So it is worth arguing with him a bit.

The detection system and even the nature of the EM Signals here is not particularly important. From my perspective, the only thing that has any real importance is if any of these earthquake precursors can let us make accurate forecasts.

The data that I have indicates that perhaps the present best and most reliable way of forecasting earthquakes is to monitor precursors that can be observed in the vicinity of the fault zone. My own method is designed to work at great distances. And it presently has major limitations. But that is all that I have to work with. I don’t have any technology for sale. And I am not promoting Mr. Park’s system. It is just another example of a system that sounds like it might work.

Government earthquake workers in the People’s Republic of China should be having some success with their efforts as they are reportedly looking at a variety of precursors. I am not sure why they are not doing better than they are. Part of the reason might be that they are working in such an isolated manner that a lot of invaluable data that is available to them never gets the attention it deserves.