You didn't read what I wrote. Check the last two sentences. If meteors give false alarms for nuclear watchdogs, and if volcanoes can emit nuke test type waves, it gets right back to what I said--I don't believe you can dismiss an INITIAL report (possible nuke test) if it is based off seismograph readings. After the physical damage of a quake is witnessed and after a more thorough look is done at seismograph readings, then you can tell the difference between the distinct signature of a quake, a nuke test, glacier ice braking, meteors, volcanoes, . . .
Instead of spending time researching infrasonic waves from volcanoes and atmospheric tests, your time would be better spent researching the differences and similarities of nuclear testing vs earthquakes. There are some obvious differences that can be assessed by amateurs. Occasionally, some in depth analysis might be necessary to distinguish the 2.
IOW - you can usually tell the difference between an egg and a golf ball without in depth analysis.
Your arguments and reasoning are odd.