An Experiment in Alternative Methods of Earthquake Prediction

amarenell
I was laying in bed trying to shut my brain up, when I finally asked myself what the heck is this already? The first thing that popped in my head was 8.4. Followed by Aleutians. Mentally I asked myself "WHAT?" Then I got, 'Wait no maybe Azores.' (Yes I talk to myself, but I for the most part do it silently

)
So of course that flipped me out a bit, because an 8.4 would factor into some pretty bad doom and gloom scenarios. An 8.4 in the Azores could potentially do a whole heck of a lot more.

The biggest earthquake in the Azores I remember was a 7.something, a 8.4 would be devastating, I hope it doesn't happen.

caitlinfae
reply to post by JustMike

 

Well that's really weird..we have the same headache. I didn't twig at all that's why you might be asking me. Now I'm definitely spooked. The only other name I got today, almost by a process of association with Alaska in a strange way, was Patagonia. I was thinking...why Alaska? and wondering what it really looked like to be there, and thinking it was one of the real wilderness destinations I would love to visit one day, along with Patagonia. They kinda make me feel the same when I think about them...very remote, cold, primitive, wild places. I'm sure I would love them both, but I also have the feeling that Alaska is a clue about something larger. That dream I logged a while back of the land tipping up and sliding into the sea was definitely in Alaska, and it would affect the whole Pacific, whatever event it is. Kinda makes me think about the "global coastal event" I've read about in the past.

emphasis mine

Well well well, lookie here.

Not Patagonia, bu Peru is a close neighbor.

reply to post by jadedANDcynical


I was just going to post that I had a little wee headache bubbling today...not much, although there was a 5 somthing in the Aleutians. It's interesting that this has popped up in Peru, and the 5.4 in Chile. I know what you mean..it's not quite right, but it's a big quake, and kinda close. I was just checking the map, and what I was seeing in my mind when I posted that was really the western coast of South America, the southern Chile coast, and not strictly Patagonia which is part of Argentina on most maps, although the very tip of Chile is sometimes called Chilean Patagonia. Confusing! Sorry...I'm thinking out loud here and maps fascinate me. I'm maybe a little spooked.

Let's throw another into the mix. For some eternally bizarre reason, I was looking at maps and planning a trip in my imagination today to....Greenland! Ha!

Thank you for flagging this up for me....curious.

reply to post by caitlinfae


Hi Caitlin, thank you for being so nice! When I first woke this morning it wasn't much better so I went back to bed. My second wake up was disgruntled but not so anxious. However I had one of the worst night's sleep in a very long time.
I felt better after checking the quake watch page and seeing nothing big had happened.
The anxiety has rolled through me a few times today, so I know it isn't finished.

I hope your headache clears up for you!

reply to post by amarenell


Thank you...ache is not bad tonight at all. Hope you get better sleep tonight though...it always makes you feel like poop the next day.

I've just totally freaked myself out by playing with the USGS search function, as I didn't know what a 9 mag quake looked like on the map, so I asked for all the 8.5 plus quakes since 1960. The 2 biggest were in Chile and Alaska.

USGS search

I'm worried that I haven't seen any aftershocks from the Peru eq yet.

Peace

Reykjanes Ridge EQ


Ok....I was kinda having a laugh with the Greenland thing. I didn't honestly expect to see anything this morning, but this lists the closest city as Nanortalik in Greenland, although it's an offshore quake. It's also at a latitude very close to where I am ...it's 57.56, and I'm at 57.10.

Apart from that, a wee bit sore this morning,nagging Alaska headache, rising anxiety ( and I have to say this event doesn't help ) but I'm very busy the next two days so I hope that distracts me.

Have a fab day everyone!

reply to post by kattraxx



FYI

z3news.com...

This is the first time I've seen more or less convincing Christian prophetic sources or such sources with more or less convincing dreams etc. asserting a super big quake on the same day . . . San Francisco . . . Oct 3.

Time will tell. I pray it's not true or delayed.

However, given all the givens . . . I think, personally, I'd take a short vacation away from the city for 2-3 days around that day.

Too many mid 4 mags on the map today... don't like it. Just wanted to document the weird feeling here. Thanks!!

Do want to note here... there was another massive earthquake/aftershock in Pakistan.

M 6.8 - 96km NNE of Awaran, Pakistan

PAGER - YELLOWShakeMap - VIIDYFI? - VII
Time
2013-09-28 02:34:07 UTC-05:00
Location
27.263°N 65.587°E
Depth
14.8km

reply to post by MamaJ


These Pakistan quakes feel like the foreshocks of the Japan quake. Hope this isn't the case.

Peace

Since this afternoon, I have felt "inexplicably" sick to my stomach. It reminds me of the night before the Japan quake.

I haven't had any other particulars. If I do, I will update.

reply to post by amarenell


I'm just logging this as your symptoms kinda reflect mine. I've had three nights of very disturbed sleep, and two very strong moments of nausea yesterday out of the blue. I've also had panic attacks, and last nights was terrible...a very intense feeling of something looming, some kind of real danger that I felt would kill me. It still hasn't quite subsided, and it's not like my usual panic attacks which are gone very quickly and I snap back to normal. This is like a nightmare that is still there when I wake up, and that's after 10 hours. Could be real life stress, I guess, but I've never been this bad before. Very sore physically, sore ribs and neck, painful ankles too. Bleh.

Hope everyone is ok...

reply to post by BO XIAN

I'm replying to this because after reading much of the source material you've linked to, I just think it's worth noting a few points.

While San Francisco could well have another large quake, there doesn't seem to be any seismic capability for one around a magnitude 9 close to it -- certainly not in the sense of generating a tsunami big enough to destroy the Golden Gate Bridge. Such a tsunami, or even one approaching that sort of size, would only result from two possible seismic sources -- either a very powerful submarine subduction event, or a massive, quake-triggered submarine landslide.

An offshore (ie submarine) mid-magnitude-9 subduction event could very well produce a huge tsunami, but even if such an event were to occur, a tsunami in deeper water has far less effect on objects in its path than one which reaches the shore, where it tends to cumulate -- just keep building up and building up. So, as the water around the Bridge itself is quite deep (about 300 ft -- though the Bay itself is mostly very shallow), it's not likely that a tsunami on its own would swamp the bridge and bring it down.

Also, there is no known subduction fault close enough to SF to cause such an event. Yes, there is the Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) that extends for hundreds of miles up the coast from Nth Cal to around Vancouver, B.C., but it finishes at the triple junction about 200 miles NW of SF, but due to the profile of the coastline even a major event on the CSZ would be very unlikely to create a tsunami for Frisco of the size that some of the visions or prophetic statements have indicated.

Does this mean it's all just fantasy and a huge tsunami hitting SF bay is simply impossible?

No, because of the other possibility: a very large submarine landslide triggered by a large quake -- especially if the quake itself is offshore.

The San Andreas fault (SAF) runs right past SF Bay, then on out into the ocean and goes along just off the coast until it reaches the triple junction futher north. If that section of the SAF were to let go with a strike-slip faulting event (and that's the type of fault it is, mainly), then the sudden "shunting" of two submarine land masses in opposite directions could cause a huge slide, and that could generate a very large but fairly localized tsunami that could inundate the Bay and nearby coastal regions. Landslide tsunamis can be very large, but as they have a much shorter wavelength than subduction zone tsunamis, they tend to dissipate more rapidly. But locally, their effects can be quite devastating and they can even be much larger in wave height than the "typical" subduction-event tsunamis are.

The worst "worst-case scenario" that I can imagine is the following, and please note this is purely a scenario and by no means suggests it's going to happen, either tomorrow or any time soon:
First, the CSZ lets go. In fact, it is now within the geological "time window" for another event, as the last big subduction event on the CSZ was 313 years ago and they've been dated via turbidites to occur at intervals of anywhere from a century or two up to around 1,000 years. The last event, back in 1700, was estimated at somewhere around a magnitude 9, partly based on studies of drowned inland forests that were inundated and killed by the tsunamis' seawater in January of that year. Also, it's estimated by experts like Chris Goldfinger and others that the last one may have come ashore at around 30 metres high (~100 ft) in some places, especially in the WA coastal regions.

The shaking in a major subduction quake event is incredibly violent and can also last for several minutes. In the case of the CSZ, it would likely be felt over thousands of square miles and could even have some direct effects as far south as Frisco.

But here's what makes this scenario the worst case: it's theoretically possible that if the CSZ lets go, it could trigger movement in the San Andreas Fault as well, especially along the part that adjoins the CSZ and extends southwards towards Frisco. In that case, considering the coastal sea bed for hundreds of miles has already been given a massive shaking by the CSZ subduction, a secondary strike-slip event on the SAF -- say in the magnitude 7 range, which is not infeasible there off the Cali coast -- could be enough to trigger a large landslide.

If this all happened in the space of just a few minutes (and that's not impossible), then an incoming subduction-triggered tsunami could meet with a submarine landslide tsunami, and as the energy doesn't just "cancel out" and disappear but instead the waves would likely combine, then a very large tsunami could sweep towards the very nearby coast (and the Bay) and cause huge damage. So, if the bridge had already been weakened in some ways by the several minutes of shaking from the more-distant CSZ event, then a major tsunami might be enough to cause some amount of collapse. It would definitely be very devastating to the closer coastal regions, even if the Bridge remained standing and more-or-less unscathed.

As I said, all of the above is purely hypothetical. But if everything occurred in the sequence I've outlined, then the visions and prophetic statements that some have made would not be too far from the reality.

Do I expect it to happen tomorrow? No, I don't, but I also don't believe in dismissing things out of hand just because they sound far-fetched to most of us. I look at what's physically possible, even if only theoretically. The mechanisms for such an event do exist within the region, so I thought it worth stating. But I repeat: I do not know of any studies that suggest a mid- to high-magnitude-9 event is possible within San Francisco itself. However I'm just an amateur and I freely admit that, so if anyone does have some details of actual studies then by all means please post them.

reply to post by JustMike


THANKS MUCH for your EXCELLENT analysis, as usual.

I noticed just now that Stan Deyo's quake prediction methodology has for 30 Sep:

standeyo.com...

wherein the SF area is circled in red as a potential significant quake site in the next 1-7 days or so.

IIRC, he bases his calculations on sea floor temperature anomalies. I think he has a well above 50/50 hit rate.

He also posits an expanding earth hypothesis instead of a plate tectonic one.

He's a bright, clever fellow and an authentic Christian as well. I respect his assertions even though I don't think he or anyone has it all figured out.

I still keep in mind the huge undersea cliff face several hundred? feet high, that occurred fairly instantly during the Sumatra quake. The geologist experts had said such a thing was IMPOSSIBLE . . . until faced with the undersea pics and related evidence. Shockingly Astonishing, it was.

Mankind just THINKS he has lots of things figured out.

I think God is all set and ready to show mankind just how clueless mankind is, relatively.

reply to post by BO XIAN

Thanks for the link to that site. It certainly looks interesting and his methodology has some basis in observable phenomena, so at least it's possible to examine it and look for possible associations. I also like the way he doesn't try to claim absurd percentages for success as some sites do. That indicates a good dose of pragmatism.

Re your latter comments in your post: I think we (as humans) know very little about a great deal, and a great deal about very little. And the funny thing is, much of what we know required very little figuring out -- once we took off the blinkers and actually saw what has been in front of us all along, instead of seeing what we wanted to see.

And in respect of quakes and tectonic plates and all that relates to them (if plate theory is even near the mark), I feel that we are still looking a lot and seeing very little. We're missing things that are right before our eyes -- things that ought to be clear but are hiding in plain sight and which later will make us ask, "How did we not see that? It's so obvious!"

lasertaglover
reply to post by MamaJ

 

These Pakistan quakes feel like the foreshocks of the Japan quake. Hope this isn't the case.

Peace

There is a subduction zone off the Pakistan coast, and if I recall correctly the last major subduction event there was almost 70 years ago. (It was in the 1940s, anyway. A low-mag-8 event, which caused a tsunami.)

The difference between this situation and Japan is that Japan's mag-7-range foreshock was along the same fault as the big quake a few days later on March 11, 2011, whereas Pakistan's most recent major quakes have been well inland and also strike-slip events (not subduction), which suggests the mag 6.8 was an aftershock of last week's big one. It's within the right location and mag range to be classified as such, anyway.

The only real oddness here was the "mud volcano" island that formed off the coast, a long way from the inland quake's epicenter. That suggests some local coastal disturbance very close to the subduction zone, and I don't like things like that at all. It's another level, a piece of the puzzle that is hard to fit -- but not because it won't go, but because we don't know what the real picture is that we're trying to put together, so we can't see how the mud volcano island event really connects with the inland quakes. We just assume they are connected, but what does it tell us?

I have no idea and oh, I wish I had!

reply to post by JustMike


I greatly agree.

I think Stan's humility is above average. And Holly is a Dear.

It will be interesting to see how the whole tectonic plates vs expanding earth issues play out.

I still don't understand how the 'experts' look at the New Madrid.

Assuming that it WILL result in a tongue of the Gulf of Mexico reaching the Great Lakes . . . how would they explain that?


And how does the New Madrid fault system relate to the . . . what's it called . . .

"The Missouri gravity ___________ " The line that goes from Montana South East to the coast or near the coast . . . wherein the gravity tends to be significantly less than average.

And how does that realte to tectonics vs expanding earth?

I have no idea but am interested in whatever answers may be available.

Thx for all you do for this thread and site.

reply to post by BO XIAN

I have a suspicion that the answer to the tectonic plate model versus the expanding earth (EE) model may lie somewhere between the two -- or a combination of them, perhaps. It doesn't seem that either model is fully supportable on its own, though I must admit that I still need to do a lot more study on the EE model. There's also the electric universe model to consider, as it might be too narrow a viewpoint to consider our planet a closed system from a tectonic viewpoint.

With regards to the New Madrid Seismic Zone (NMSZ), there seems to be a range of opinion among the experts and about the only thing they seem to all agree on is that it exists!

However, jesting aside, the Missouri Gravity Low that you mentioned is very interesting as it might help to explain why there is current seismic activity in the NMSZ. As Hildenbrand et al posit in Quantitative Investigations of the Missouri Gravity Low ***, the Missouri Batholith is the apparent source of the gravity low, and (they suggest) the batholith was possibly formed by a mantle plume (a "hotspot") in the Late Precambrian. (***PDF, from Missouri University of Science and Technology's website, size 4.0 MB.)

I won't go into all the details but basically, the authors offer a model that goes towards explaining both the gravity low and the seismic activity in the NMSZ region, but they also admit that it doesn't answer some questions which they raise themselves in their summarizing statements. And no, it doesn't help us get any closer to determining if the tectonic plate model or EE model is near the mark!

Also, even though that paper was published some years ago and the research in the NMSZ is still proceeding, I've not come across any reports that suggest a real possibility of the US splitting up the middle (along the zone and beyond). Well, not in the short term, anyway.

Have really enjoyed the past few pages of this thread. Thank you Mike, Bo especially with entertaining the discussion that includes EE theory and how different aspects may relate to the various observations quoted within this read.

That certain people might be more attuned to their own physiology and be able to discern that subtle affects the earth seems to have upon us all collectively and individually makes perfect sense.

If I may, I will indulge in observations and perceptions brought upon me by your recent dialogue.

The role of electricity in all of these systems, from the biological ones in people and their pets, to the geological ones within the earth is much greater than most give credit to.

It responds to itself in ways which we are barely able to understand, so to think that people and animals living on the planet would not be affected by the EM fields that the earth is awash in, is to deny factual observation.

I've spoken of resonance before in regards to seismic activity and I'm going to bring up resonance within electromagnetic (the very fact that the two are as intertwined as they are should be a HUGE clue, you can't have magnetism without electricity) fields and how they might relate to the subject of alternate methods of earthquake prediction.

It is a well known fact that many people are subject to EMF hypersensitivity

EHS is characterized by a variety of non-specific symptoms, which afflicted individuals attribute to exposure to EMF. The symptoms most commonly experienced include dermatological symptoms (redness, tingling, and burning sensations) as well as neurasthenic and vegetative symptoms (fatigue, tiredness, concentration difficulties, dizziness, nausea, heart palpitation, and digestive disturbances). The collection of symptoms is not part of any recognized syndrome.

This sounds exactly like what many describe, though maybe to not such a great degree.

It could be that different people are more susceptible to different frequencies and for example, earthquakes in certain geographic regions may vibrate within a specific 'frequency band' in you will and thus only some people would be attuned to those particular areas due to their individual 'tuning' to which they are susceptible.

Which would be why caitlinfae is 'tuned' to earthquakes in Alaska and similar latitudes.