Holy cow Roger, how many times do I have to explain this?

After all these years you still don’t understand this simple concept?

Individual peaks on a line are inconsequential with those research charts, regardless of the size and longitude of the line peaks.

Look at the general structure and pattern of peaks of an EM Signal line.

Then look at the general structure and pattern of peaks on an earthquake line.

If both have similar patterns of peaks then that indicates that the EM Signal and earthquake were likely linked.

It doesn’t matter where on the line the peaks are located to make that type of determination.

On the other hand,

If you want to know where the earthquake is going to occur then the longitude of a peak is important. But if you only want to tell when a signal and earthquake were related to one another then that similarity of line peaks information is useful.

Why is that peak shape similarity concept so difficult to understand?

If the EM Signal and earthquake were not related then the line peaks patterns for the earthquake line and the EM Signal line look entirely different.

And the point of all of that is that if the charts show that the EM Signals and earthquakes were probably related then it provides evidence that the EM Signals could probably have pointed to where the earthquake was about to occur had the right type of detection system been used instead of my less accurate computer programs.

I am using computer programs because at the moment I don’t have anything better to process those EM Signals with.

These are personal opinions.