If possible, I would like to ask for some help/opinions/feedback or guidance from people more or less versed or knowledgeable in statistics/mathematics and/or how to check for a valid scientific comparison of curve shapes in graphs between different sets of data.

I would like you to have a closer look at the course of the curves (curve shape/waveform) of the following 3 graphs and compare them to each other. Especially the first graph with the last graph:

Is it just me, or are the curve shapes looking strikingly similar (especially the first and the third one)? Here are the same three graphs put into one graph + the date of discovery of every NEO closer than the moon, but this time expressed in a line chart. I excluded the distorting data at the beginning (because it was counted in decades there) to get a more accurate picture of the line curves:

View attachment 54534
As a layperson, the above graph seems to be still a bit misleading to me since the four different curves have 4 different scales? Because I tried to put those four different scales into one graph? That's why the green and black lines look very different, to the red and blue ones, I would say? See below for how I'm currently thinking it should be compared instead. Anyway, the two lines above (red and blue) are close enough to each other in scale (but still a bit distorted against each other?) that I can illustrate what I mean by putting in vertical black lines and a couple of arrows:

View attachment 54526
It seems to me that within the vertical black lines, the curve shapes and the curse of the curves are practically almost exactly the same? And even in the part marked by the arrows, although seemingly a bit different, the general shape is almost the same as well? And in the non marked part there also could be a similarity, although much less obvious/concrete? And the overall shapes from beginning to end are also pretty similar?

So, is this a valid comparison between the two lines/data sets? If so, how can this be explained when the blue line represents all discovered NEOs in each year and the red curve represents all confirmed Fireballs over the USA? How could this possibly be explained by any other way than that there might be direct correlation between the two lines (data)? And what is that correlation? An actual increase of such objects in the solar system around us, right down to earths atmosphere, rather than the argument that this must be due to "improved technology" or "more telescopes/people/satellites looking" for it? I mean, how likely is it that this striking similarity between the two lines can be explained by "improved technology" or "more telescopes/people/satellites looking" when you consider the fact that Fireballs are very easily noticed on earth with our own eyes alone, while to find/see NEOs it is comparable to try to find a Needle in a Haystack (a very, very, very strong understatement!)?

So, could the above be one of the first actual solid evidence pieces (if not the only one, as of now) that there is a good likelihood that what the C's have told us (that a comet cluster is coming in) is what is happening there? Could it also be one of the first actual solid evidence pieces that quite clearly goes against the argument of it being due to "improved technology" or "more telescopes/people/satellites looking"?

Anyhow, now here are the four lines in the above graph individually within their own scales. I'm assuming that comparing the following four lines/curves with each other in some way (in how they look below) is the most accurate way of comparing the four curves between each other? If so, how could I do that exactly to be statistically/scientifically correct? Would need to overlay (superimpose) the four lies as they presented below? If so, how?

View attachment 54535
View attachment 54536
View attachment 54537
View attachment 54538
I also tried to represent the four lines above in 4 different cumulative charts instead. Maybe that is a better (or more accurate) way for comparison? If wanted/needed, I could post those results here too. As of now, though, the cumulative approach doesn't seem to be the right one, as far as I can see.