EQF;

> It would be difficult for me to imagine how your comments could be any more meaningless than they appear to me to be.

Odd. It's perfectly clear to me.

> You keep insisting that my methodology is some type of secret. And that is 100% inaccurate.

That's part of the problem. I understand your methodology. It's the raw data I want. I list of signal date/times. Understand?

> If you read the reports at my Web site or any number of reports posted here in the past they state that for EM Signal data anyone can try using Ear Tone times. Or, if they would rather work with a detector in a box they could probably contact the person in China who developed the detector that is described on one of my Web pages. It reportedly cost something like $2000 U.S. to build. Ear Tone times are free.

No, I don't propose to search the web for ear tones. I want YOUR data.

> Once the data have been collected they can be processed with the free downloadable computer programs that can be found on my Web site.

Not my intention at all.

> And finally, also at my web site there are exhaustive explanations for how to evaluate the original data and the finalized charts.

But no original data which is all I want. Independent analysis.

> So, the complete forecasting methodology is described there from start to finish. And if I knew more about the actual nature of these EM Signals I would be happy to tell people about that. But learning that type of information is beyond my own present technical capabilities.

Which is why nobody takes you seriously. You have these mysterious signals of unknown nature and you think they relate to quakes but have no evidence to support the belief.

> I use Ear Tone times myself with my forecasts when they are available and from a source that has been shown to be reliable. For certain important reasons, some of my other detection procedures are not being publicly discussed. But as I said, Ear Tones times from at least certain people appear to produce excellent forecast data.

Petra's didn't and she's the best I know of.

> And so, I can’t see why you and others keep insisting that there is something secret about my forecasting procedure. The Web pages reports were written so that they should be understandable by anyone who did well with high school physics.

I did well in college physics so you're not impressing me with that.

Roger

If a person cannot understand that level of physics or if he or she doesn’t have the patience to read over my Web site reports and try to develop an understanding of the material then there isn’t much that I can do about that.