It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

An Experiment in Alternative Methods of Earthquake Prediction

page: 134
108
<< 131  132  133    135  136  137 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by justsaying
 


The rumblings stopped at about 5:00.

Stay safe and give your dog some animal valium




posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   
Loudest ear ringing I have ever had, three times in the last hour. Twice in the left, once in the right. All three times louder than any sound or conversation around me, drowned out all other sounds it was so loud.

Still have the building feeling, but this ear ringing makes me think a large foreshocks is about to happen. Still feel that we are a week out from this big event I am feeling, but because of the ear ringing, something good sized in the next hours for sure.

Peace and Love

And go play laser tag lol


edit on 12-2-2012 by lasertaglover because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonlover12
 


Uhhhhhhhhh . . . what region are you in?

I probably missed it.

Doh! Your avatar lists it. Thx

And how reliable are your . . . sensings re substantive quakes, normally?
edit on 12/2/2012 by BO XIAN because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by TMG333
 


Some migrane sufferers have had relief by upping their water intake considerably. You might try it. I think it was to 8-10 big glasses/day.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 10:59 PM
link   
4.4 in Northern California just 10 minutes ago.. hmmm...



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by JustMike
 


Do you also dismiss my notion that the line of quakes along the top of Australia down to Tonga . . . 5.X

look connected somehow?

The professionals certainly do.

They just don't look that independent, to me.

earthquake.usgs.gov...

I'm wondering if they are some sort of precursor to something much more dramatic over much of that length.

Yet, the faults don't seem to match the line. I don't know what to make of it.

I still don't think it's mere 'coincidence.'

But I'm an ignorant layman.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by BO XIAN
 


Oh trust me, I drink a ton of water every day. That's about all I drink, water and iced tea, sometimes a glass of milk before bed, I stay away from soda and alcohol and usually coffee as well unless I need a real pick-me-up.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by TMG333
 


Good on ya. Me too. Tea where possible. H2O and OJ otherwise.



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by BO XIAN
 


For local (AR,TX,OK) about 70% within a 24 hour window. includes small ones, like 2.0.

Unfortunately, I also get the headache from hell with larger quakes that are not local (again usually within 12-24 hours).

I was not having migraines as often (maybe 2 or 3 a month) antil last year when the quakes started rolling thru AR last year. Something changed, in me or my sensitivity to the fracking things or maybe something else.Whatever it is, I seem very connected to disturbances under my feet. And I don`t like it at all.

Never had a problem with my ears ringing either, until January 2011.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by BO XIAN
 

Hello Xian,

do you mnd if I express puzzlement? I don't even recall you presenting this notion before, let alone me dismissing it.
And whose other notion have I dismissed to make yours "also" dismissed?

I see nothing in my post that you linked to regarding this, so please elaborate.

If I may voice an opinion on the Tonga/north of Australia case, it seems to me that certainly for quakes along some sections of the ring of fire, they are likely connected even if they are not precisely on a known fault line. Again, I do not recall denying this possibility. Fault lines do not have to mean that quakes will only occur along them; if they are in the general area then it's not unreasonable they are related, though sometimes in ways that are not easily discernible.

EDIT to add: But then, I believe that quakes in some parts of the world are sometimes related to quakes even on the other side of the world -- and I have made this plain in several posts in this thread (including some annotated maps). Some of these posts go back two or three years but they're all available for anyone who cares to look.

So again, I am not sure if you are criticizing some perceived stance of mine or simply querying something I am supposed to have said in that referenced post. I'd be happy to get this cleared up so please let me know.

Mike
edit on 13/2/12 by JustMike because: ETA



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by JustMike
 


GOODNESS NO.

SORRY for being so unclear and misleading.

It was poo-pooed on another thread by other respected folks of the quake hierarchy. LOL.

You've been nothing but wonderful always in our exchanges, IIRC. LOL.

I just ran across you on this thread and thought to myself . . . self--check it out with Mike. He may be a bit more open to such possibilities. YEA!

I just replied to your post to get your perspective on my notions about such.

THX THX.

.

edit on 13/2/2012 by BO XIAN because: an addition



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by dragonlover12
 


WOW.

Sounds like your sensitivities got kicked into a higher gear somehow.

Hmmmm.

Wish I had a solution for the migranes. There's good info on the net but I know everyone's different.

Thx for your kind reply.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by BO XIAN
 

Hello Bwo2,

oh, now I see! Such are the vagaries of the English language. So "you also" meant "you, like others have done as well".

Thank for clearing that up!

It's a pity that sometimes our theories get knocked pretty hard by others. I am sure I have been guilty of this on occasion, though I generally try to be fair. And when it comes to tectonic theory, quakes and so forth, I don't think anyone can claim to know for certain what all the interrelationships are or even how much some things might relate (or not).

I for one see no reason why there cannot be a relationship between quakes in a known seismic region that happen in a fairly short time frame along or near a known fault (or fault system). True, maybe there is not any known and quantifiable causative connection between them, but that doesn't mean that none exists. It could simply be that we haven't indentified it yet.

However, even on the other thread, a lot of good discussion, speculation, hypothesizing and friendly disagreement goes on -- which is all for the better, I feel. I certainly encourage it here and I think that we all do. We need to think outside the box, outside the square, outside the sphere, because what we are trying to achieve requires us to do so. Simple concepts of cause and effect -- of A leads to B and that leads to C -- are simply not enough. I think we are more likely to find that A leads to K and this leads to B, X and Z, which in turn lead back to A, but this time it leads not to K, but to C, Y, and J -- and so on.

To my mind, there is some sense of chaos in the way quakes happen, but it's not completely without order: while tectonic plate theory is fair enough as a model for now, I feel it's vastly too simple as it stands to make much progress in efforts to predict what will happen next and where it will occur, let alone at what degree of magnitude and hypocentric depth. The number of variables is immense and we probably don't even know what they all are.

What if there is just one variable that we have overlooked or considered insignificant, but which turns out be highly important?

Allow me to elaborate: I have mentioned before in this thread (a long time back) that I see quake/seismic activity as something like the weather: a small change in one place can eventually lead to a major change somewhere else. This "chaotic" type of principle is accepted in meteorology, to the extent that even when a huge hurricane is bearing down on a region there might be half a dozen different projected tracks for where it will actually go. They all rely on the weight of the fundamental assumptions used to compute the various tracks. In other words, while apparently scientific, they come down to what are really subjective decisions.

However, the Butterfly in Beijing effect says that even all those varied projections could wind up wrong, because one small change can cause a cascade of altered influences and the hurricane goes where no-one thought it would.

Hurricanes are energy movers, energy transfer machines, huge whirling masses of energy churning along just on or above the Earth's surface. Quakes are also part and parcel of energy being moved or transferred or released, though sometimes that energy takes years or centuries to build versus a few days for most major storms. And while the "butterflies" might not be as discernible as they are for hurricanes, does that mean that there aren't any? Does it mean there is no slow-developing chrysalis of energy ready to emerge and spread its wings somewhere and through a cascade effect, lead to a quake where and when we did not expect it? -- Meaning, that we do not see any link between the two?

Granted, while conventional science will tell us that (say) a mag 4.0 in Southern California cannot possibly lead to a mag 8 in the Kamchatkas or Chile or Japan, how do we know for certain that this science is correct? On the surface, it would seem the science is right, but we have look beyond the surface, both literally and figuratively, and consider possibilities that on their own might seem absurd.

Like the butterfly effect.

That's how I see things, anyway.
And in that light, I welcome any contributions from anyone that might give us an insight and perhaps find a butterfly, or even one still in its chrysalis. Again, I believe we all want this, because the ultimate objective of being able to predict destructive quakes is the goal -- because that could lead to saving lives. This is not about me being right, or you, or any one of us.
It's about that goal.

Along the way, we will often be wrong, but if we can help to find some keys and apply what we learn and through it, help to save even one life, then it's all worthwhile.

Mike


edit on 13/2/12 by JustMike because: typos



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Again with the uber loud ringing right now.

All my kids are home sick today, so I've been too busy to notice much else. But had to jump on and share. Just once, but louder than last night, and much longer.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by JustMike
 


I greatly agree, of course.

And, it's not a huge biggy that others declined to jump on my hypothesis bandwagon on the other thread.

I just figured it would have a . . . more generous benefit of the doubt with you. LOL. Seems I was right on that score.

Yea.

It was just that THAT line of quakes--another added in the last 24 hours--

JUMPED OUT AT ME the instant I saw it.

It seems to be . . . let's say there was a semi-trailer load of canned food spilled on the freeway.

And after several vehicles crashing into them--they were REALLY CHAOTIC--without any order in their arrangement.

Yet, inexplicably in one of the MOST chaotic sections, there were 8-12 of them in a virtual straight line.

I don't think anyone would ASSUME

that THAT straight line OCCURRED WITHOUT

A CAUSE, totally by chance.

That's how I feel about that line of quakes. It just does not compute for me that it was 100% ONLY due to TOTALLY CHANCE FACTORS.

Anyway--rushing off to lunch.

Thx thx.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by BO XIAN
 

I like the analogy.


Here's what keeps me awake sometimes: is "chance" really random? If we consider chance events, every event is dependent in some way upon some other event having occurred, and so on, back and back.

But to your comment about those quakes basically jumping out at you. Yes, they do that with me sometimes. In fact, it's one of the things I look for when I study the maps. And it's not always the big ones. Sometimes I see a marker for a smaller quake and think "Hmmmm..." Other times, a place name jumps out. The place name doesn't even need to be physically written there. If I see it, I see it. And when that happens I start looking deeper.

Bolivia (some weeks back) was a good example of this.

I think it's all valid. True, in my previous (long) reply to you, I focused on what I suppose we could call physical factors, like cause and effect, but we are equally interested in the others. This is why when people post about what they feel or sense, it's so important to have it here.

Mike



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by lasertaglover
 

Weird, that. I wonder about that ringing and exactly why some hear it. I get ringing anyway but yes, sometimes it's pretty extreme and then it goes away. I am not often able to link it to quake activity, though I know others do and quite reliably.

By the way, folks, I am currently keeping a pretty close watch on the Nth Cal/Oregon region. I see what appears to be a progression of smallish quakes down the coast and near-coastal regions since the mag 5.7 off BC/WA (near Van Island) a week ago. I have screen shots that showed when there were eleven offshore quakes from OR/WA in those few days, and though some have now dropped off we have new ones popping up, going down into Nth Cal from OR.

All of this seems to relate to the Casacadia Subduction Zone (CSZ), and when anything much seems to be happening with the CSZ it's worth taking note.

I need to write up some notes and so forth and perhaps post when I can get everything in some order, but meanwhile I'd be interested in any observations/reports from members living up that way, or even down in SoCal.

Mike



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by JustMike
 


I certainly agree about it's important to have people's

individual dreams, visions, 'sensings,' posted here for comparison and analysis . . . and reflection after the fact thereon.

Thanks for your thoughtful, meaty response.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by JustMike
 


By the way, folks, I am currently keeping a pretty close watch on the Nth Cal/Oregon region. I see what appears to be a progression of smallish quakes down the coast and near-coastal regions since the mag 5.7 off BC/WA (near Van Island) a week ago. I have screen shots that showed when there were eleven offshore quakes from OR/WA in those few days, and though some have now dropped off we have new ones popping up, going down into Nth Cal from OR.


I think that's a very astute observation . . .

Perhaps we could frame a hypothesis something like this . . .

--precursor quakes of small and medium or more size propagate directionally related to faults . . .

--perhaps kind of like a blanket lying on a bed . . . and one partially lifts it and shakes it a bit in a rolling motion to get the last bit of wrinkles out.

--the propagating quakes travel directionally--down, up, from middle down and up or left and right . . . relieving one sort of stress in one close-at hand location . . . and cocking things even more in other parts of the situation.

Therefore what, I don't know. Seems somewhat self-evident, to me.

Am I off the wall?



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Referring to my post above from about 2 1/2 hours ago, there has just been another quake in Nth Cal, very near the coast, and a mag 5.5 is very significant in this region:

Magnitude 5.5 - NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
2012 February 13 21:07:02 UTC

Details
Maps
Scientific & Technical
Tsunami

Earthquake Details

This event has been reviewed by a seismologist.

Magnitude 5.5
Date-Time

Monday, February 13, 2012 at 21:07:02 UTC
Monday, February 13, 2012 at 01:07:02 PM at epicenter

Location 41.153°N, 123.817°W
Depth 32.9 km (20.4 miles)
Region NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
Distances

10 km (6 miles) WSW (247°) from Weitchpec, CA
28 km (17 miles) ENE (63°) from Westhaven-Moonstone, CA
29 km (18 miles) ENE (70°) from Trinidad, CA
50 km (31 miles) NE (36°) from Eureka, CA
352 km (218 miles) NW (326°) from Sacramento, CA

Location Uncertainty horizontal +/- 0.3 km (0.2 miles); depth +/- 0.8 km (0.5 miles)
Parameters Nph= 62, Dmin=17 km, Rmss=0.17 sec, Gp= 72°,
M-type=regional moment magnitude (Mw), Version=5
Source

California Integrated Seismic Net:
USGS Caltech CGS UCB UCSD UNR

Event ID nc71734741

Did you feel it? Report shaking and damage at your location. You can also view a map displaying accumulated data from your report and others.


Source: USGS Data page

Here's the map:

Source: USGS MAP (Note that these USGS links will likely drop off their server after 7 days. However, the data will still be within their system and can be confirmed in future via the NEIC search database.)

People, I don't like the look of this. This is above the average sort of seismic acitivity we see in this region. As I mentioned before, I've been watching this region closely for a few days and I voiced my concerns a couple of hours ago because I saw a possible pattern developing. This new quake just makes my concerns stronger. We had a mag 5.7 up off Van Island a week ago, then an aftershock to it, then nine more quakes down the coast over the following days, another closer to the coast (mag 3.3) , then a 4.4 in Nth Cal, and now this mag 5.5.

I sincerely hope this is not a precursor to a major event but I'm frankly nervous about it.

Would be glad if members in the region could chime in.

Mike
edit on 13/2/12 by JustMike because: fixed coding



new topics

top topics



 
108
<< 131  132  133    135  136  137 >>

log in

join