It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 72
<< 69  70  71    73  74  75 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 30 2008 @ 09:59 PM
reply to post by JustMike

JustMike, I've been wondering the very same thing-- and watching the maps-- where are the aftershocks? As MountainDog pointed out, first reports had this offshore NorCal EQ at 6.2, which is not insignificant. It doesn't make sense. Good idea to post the USGS map.

I just popped online to post offshore Oregon precursors.

The precursors I've been getting that I thought might be for Washington state were for the southern California/Trona swarm, I realize now. What confused me were precursors that generally mean volcanic activity. A little checking reveals the Coso volcanic field in the area.

Coso volcanic field

posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 01:52 PM
reply to post by kattraxx

That California/Trona swarm is still going along. By my count there were 34 quakes there on Nov 30 (UTC timing) and so far today, Dec 01, there have been 25. Things appear to be picking up compared to days prior to Nov 30.

Has there been anything in the MSM about this?

posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 02:17 PM
reply to post by JustMike

Heck if I know-- I never watch MSM.
That Trona swarm reminds me so much of the Reno swarm, which only reinforces the belief I've held all along that the Reno (Mogul) swarm had/has the same origins.

This just in: The Geysers

2008 December 01 19:41:31 UTC

posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 02:33 PM
Just found this on the Southern California Seismic Network:

November 29, 2008
Earthquake Swarm Near Trona, CA, M4.1, 17 Miles NNE of Trona, M3.0 14 Miles N of Trona on 11/30/08, and a M4.0 - 14 Miles North of Trona, CA on 11/29/08
Filed under: Felt Earthquakes, Large Events — Anthony Guarino @ 1:31 pm

There is an ongoing earthquake swarm near Trona CA. The most recent large event was a M3.1 earthquake, located 15 miles NNE of Trona at 2:38PM, preceded by a M3.0 earthquake, located 14 miles N of Trona at 5:11 AM, preceded by a M4.1 earthquake at 5:03AM, located 17 miles NNE of Trona, CA on 11/30/08. These events were all preceded by a M4.0 event that occurred yesterday, located 14 miles north of Trona, CA at 1:14PM. Both M4+ events were felt in the epicentral region, and may have been felt as far away as Lone Pine and Ft. Irwin. This swarm is common for CA, and may continue for hours to days.

By the way, what are the commands to write "content from external source"? I thought it was [Ext] text [/Ext] but it isn't.

You may access the original page here.

I find this report interesting for two reasons. One, it calls this a swarm. Two, it says "this swarm is common for CA". While that doesn't make a lot of sense, as it implies that this present swarm is common (which is grammatical nonsense), I expect they mean that swarms like this are common in California.

I'd like to know how common...

[edit on 1/12/08 by JustMike]

posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 04:01 PM
Hello everyone,

I only have a few minutes just want to say I'm glad I found this thread, I couldn't find it.

Kattraxx you sent me an e-mail about what is going on in Arkansas I can't find my e-mail with the news source you sent about the earthquakes in Arkansas and the New Madrid Fault

There is a thread about webbot and it predicting a hugh quake I believe between the 10th and 15th of this month maybe near the New Madrid Fault, the thread is one front page about webbot.

I wrote on the thread I would contact you to get the information you sent me but if you would like go to that thread and check it out and post the article you sent me they might appreciate it or not, lol

I don't know about that webbot I will have to check it out.


Sorry about caps I have to look at keys to type, duh!

I will have to get back to this thread I miss you all very much!

posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 06:15 PM

Earthquake swarms are common in the Coso area, often producing hundreds of tremors over periods of time as short as a few days. This kind of brisk and robust seismic activity is common in volcanic areas, such as Long Valley Caldera located near Mammoth Lakes, and Yellowstone Caldera at Yellowstone. The Coso Volcanic Field shows stunning examples of volcanic activity, probably last active 30-40,000 years ago, but ash emission and small cone building episodes may be Holocene (>10,000 years) in age.

JustMike, it's ex and /ex in brackets. I found the above on the link in my post above-- Coso volcanic field. I like "This kind of brisk and robust seismic activity is common in volcanic areas...." because that describes the Reno swarm, as far as I'm concerned.

Hi observe50, long time. You can google Arkansas earthquake swarm and I'm sure you'll pull up many articles on the subject. Let me know if you cannot.

Just saw a 2.0 following the 3.0 in Tres Pinos, CA.

posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 05:54 AM
reply to post by kattraxx

Thanks for the info about posting "externals".

So the generally-accepted theory is that swarms of this nature are related to volcanism... Hmmm... But as for the quakes in NV around your region, they are reluctant to identify them as volcanic-related... Double-hmmmm...

By the way, folks, that 5.8 off the coast of California has now been upgraded from a 5.8 to a 5.9. Started as a 6.2 from other sources), then USGS posted it as a (if I recall it right??) a 5.2, then 5.8, now 5.9.

Magnitude 5.9

* Friday, November 28, 2008 at 13:42:18 UTC
* Friday, November 28, 2008 at 05:42:18 AM at epicenter
* Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones

Location 40.336°N, 126.981°W
Depth 10 km (6.2 miles) set by location program

* 229 km (142 miles) W (271°) from Petrolia, CA
* 232 km (144 miles) W (264°) from Ferndale, CA
* 239 km (148 miles) W (260°) from Humboldt Hill, CA
* 243 km (151 miles) W (259°) from Eureka, CA
* 486 km (302 miles) NW (307°) from San Francisco City Hall, CA

Location Uncertainty horizontal +/- 5.6 km (3.5 miles); depth fixed by location program
Parameters NST= 88, Nph= 88, Dmin=282.3 km, Rmss=1.03 sec, Gp=122°,
M-type=regional moment magnitude (Mw), Version=9


Event ID us2008zya2

(From USGS Data page. Reproduced for informational and educational purposes.)

I guess some in the general public might think that there's not much difference between a 5.8 and a 5.9, but as most of know here, in terms of energy release it's significant as the scale is logarithmic and not simply linear.

Still no signs of any aftershocks for this quite significant event. And I still think that's very strange.

[edit on 2/12/08 by JustMike]

posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 11:22 AM
Just received this email alert from USGS:

Magnitude 4.1
Date-Time Tuesday, December 02, 2008 at 16:53:08 UTC
Tuesday, December 02, 2008 at 08:53:08 AM at epicenter

Location 35.971°N, 117.325°W
Depth 2.6 km (1.6 miles)
Distances 23 km (14 miles) N (10°) from Trona, CA
24 km (15 miles) NNE (13°) from Searles Valley, CA
31 km (19 miles) SW (224°) from Telescope Peak, CA

y/m/d h:m:s LAT
deg LON
MAP 1.3 2008/12/02 17:48:16 35.985 -117.305 3.2 25 km ( 15 mi) NNE of Trona, CA
MAP 2.0 2008/12/02 17:46:19 36.074 -117.133 17.7 11 km ( 7 mi) SSW of Telescope Peak, CA
MAP 2.5 2008/12/02 17:29:07 35.964 -117.320 0.0 22 km ( 14 mi) NNE of Trona, CA
MAP 1.9 2008/12/02 17:26:08 36.078 -117.132 17.8 11 km ( 7 mi) SSW of Telescope Peak, CA
MAP 1.4 2008/12/02 17:24:31 35.971 -117.319 4.8 23 km ( 14 mi) N of Trona, CA
MAP 2.0 2008/12/02 17:10:57 36.180 -116.730 0.2 31 km ( 20 mi) WSW of Death Valley Junction, CA
MAP 1.4 2008/12/02 17:04:14 35.977 -117.305 4.8 24 km ( 15 mi) NNE of Trona, CA
MAP 2.3 2008/12/02 17:00:04 35.968 -117.315 2.9 23 km ( 14 mi) NNE of Trona, CA
MAP 3.2 2008/12/02 16:58:09 35.965 -117.323 2.6 22 km ( 14 mi) N of Trona, CA
MAP 4.1 2008/12/02 16:53:08 35.971 -117.325 2.6 23 km ( 14 mi) N of Trona, CA
MAP 3.7 2008/12/02 16:41:19 35.970 -117.322 2.9 23 km ( 14 mi) N of Trona, CA

[edit on 12/2/08 by kattraxx]

posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 11:29 AM
Thanks Kattraxx, I should have thought of that but things here have been crazy and I need to start using my logic and common sense again.

I have a stupid question.

Somewhere I read that Yellowstone's tentacles "tubes"(I checked the spelling on this almost wrote testicles lol) don't reach to the Cascades but now it is coming out that they are finding all kinds of new faults all over the place. Do any of you think there could be a possibility that Yellowstone does have lava tubes that reach all the Cascade Volcano's.

As most know I am an experience with other life forms and I monitor as much as I can when it comes to Volcanoes because I was shown many going off at the same time, these beings also monitor.

I wonder also if some of the fires started in Cal. weren't due to land that was hot like places with 800 degree temps.

Lava heating the dry ground tree roots.... do you think this possible?

I know I might be reaching but I am trying to put pieces of a puzzle together from things I have been shown and told.

posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 12:17 PM
reply to post by observe50

Observe50, I'm no scientist, but I'll tell you what my gut tells me. I feel like things are heating up, literally, all over the world, and especially in the western U.S. Magma is on the move and unusual things are happening as a result, like in Hot Springs, Arkansas. For all we know, it's all somehow connected beneath the earth's surface. I also have the inexplicable sense that the hot flashes people are experiencing all over the world is somehow related to this. I can't explain it; it's just a feeling.

There is a lot scientists don't know, even though they make statements as if what they do know is incontrovertible and sacrosanct. Then ten years later, they're issuing statements that totally upset their previously stated "facts". So who knows?

Personally, I feel we're going to see more and stronger activity in the coming years, maybe this is even leading up to what you're speaking of. Maybe previously inactive volcanoes and faults will become very active. All I really know for sure is, something is going on and should not be ignored.

Edit to add:;;

2008 December 02 02:49:37 UTC

[edit on 12/2/08 by kattraxx]

posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 03:43 PM
Here are pynner's cloud photographs. They sure look ominous. Thanks, pynner.

external image

external image

external image

posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 03:46 PM
Those pics look like the 'gravity' wave type clouds that iVe seen before.

As a side note, i've noticed that the small quakes around portland oregon have stopped. I wonder if they are building up for something bigger or if the small quakes we've been getting will start back up definitely feeling Oregon for something soon.


posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 04:21 PM
Thanks a bunch for posting those pics...

im glad I had the cam that day, but I just wish I could have shot the earthquake clouds..

strange days on planet earth.

posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 05:20 PM
I receive the USGS earthquake notification e-mails.I have recently been noticing some unusual things with their notifications. They have been sending out deletion notifications.After review they have determined that the earthquake was not an earthquake after all! Well,if it was not an earthquake that registered 3.0 plus,what was it then?One recently was even revised to a higher magnitude and then is was determined it was not an earthquake and deleted!I have accumulated then so far and have put them on a Google document that I up date as I receive them. Here is the link to the document.
I have also plotted these deleted earthquakes in Google Earth. I wanted to see the location of them in relation to each other and to real earthquakes.After I had plotted them I began thinking about what would cause a seismograph to register as a quake and then not be one. I thought underground magma movement as one possibility.Google Earth has a feature that allows one to see all known volcanoes,so I turned it on to find all the volcanoes in the area. Guess what lines up to and is in the middle of all the volcanoes?

Link to larger
If you have Google Earth installed on your computer you can see for yourself.I have provided a link where you can download the KMZ file that will allow you to see all the deleted quakes for yourself.

[edit on 2-12-2008 by calcoastseeker]

[edit on 2-12-2008 by calcoastseeker]

[edit on 2-12-2008 by calcoastseeker]

posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 07:00 PM
reply to post by calcoastseeker

calcoastseeker, thanks for posting this information. Very clever of you to think of plotting the deleted EQ's! Is there any way you could enlarge your map and repost it on the thread?

posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 07:21 PM
I'm getting a pretty strong percursor right now, but I'm not positive of the region yet. Still, I think it's central/southern California, at least a 4.0. We'll see.

posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 08:01 PM
This trona swarm is strange.
No clear main shock and after shocks.
All of them are about the same strength.
I live about 30 miles away and have experienced many earthquakes over the years. But none like this group.
One thing i do see is this swarm my be putting strain on the Owens valley fault and the Panamint valley fault zone.
both of these faults can cause earthquakes in the mag 7+ range.

Mag Name/Epicenter Date Time Lat Lon Event ID
4.0 14.4 mi N of Trona, CA Dec 02 2008 16:53:08 UTC 35.971 -117.325 14407020
3.7 14.3 mi N of Trona, CA Dec 02 2008 16:41:19 UTC 35.970 -117.322 14407012
3.8 15.1 mi NNE of Trona, CA Dec 02 2008 11:23:43 UTC 35.979 -117.309 14406888
4.1 14.0 mi N of Trona, CA Nov 30 2008 13:03:06 UTC 35.967 -117.327 14406304
4.0 14.2 mi N of Trona, CA Nov 29 2008 21:14:09 UTC 35.970 -117.327 14406196
3.9 14.4 mi N of Trona, CA Nov 25 2008 04:11:36 UTC 35.972 -117.328 14405360

[edit on 2-12-2008 by ANNED]

[edit on 2-12-2008 by ANNED]

posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 02:46 AM
Another quake that got posted late by USGS:

2008 November 29 01:13:19 UTC

Versión en Español

* Details
* Maps
* Scientific & Technical

Where can I find...?
Earthquake Details
Magnitude 4.0

* Saturday, November 29, 2008 at 01:13:19 UTC
* Friday, November 28, 2008 at 04:13:19 PM at epicenter
* Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones

Location 47.528°N, 128.887°W
Depth 10 km (6.2 miles) set by location program

* 331 km (206 miles) WSW (255°) from Neah Bay, WA
* 340 km (211 miles) W (264°) from Forks, WA
* 346 km (215 miles) W (275°) from Taholah, WA
* 423 km (263 miles) WSW (257°) from Saanich, British Columbia, Canada
* 467 km (290 miles) WSW (248°) from Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Location Uncertainty horizontal +/- 16 km (9.9 miles); depth fixed by location program
Parameters NST= 49, Nph= 49, Dmin=298.7 km, Rmss=1.2 sec, Gp=216°,
M-type=body magnitude (Mb), Version=Q


Event ID us2008zzad

* This event has been reviewed by a seismologist.
(Note by JustMike: I now skip some general info about related organizations and go to the last lines of this page.)

U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological Survey
Page Contact Information: EHP Web Team
Page Last Modified: December 03, 2008 03:49:23 UTC

(This data is reproduced for educational and informational purposes.)

This quake was NOT posted on Nov 29, or Nov 30, Dec 1 or Dec 2. It showed up today, Dec 3 -- over four days after its occurrence! This is very worrisome.

I think we might need to regularly capture copies of the entire Nth American USGS map, in order to monitor late-reported quakes. Here is one for today at 8.32am (UTC):

(This map is reproduced for educational and informational purposes.)

The one in question is clearly visible on this map. It was not shown there yesterday or in days prior. One has to ask why there was such a delay in releasing details of what appears to be a relatively minor quake. Also, just as with the mag 5.9 off California from Nov 28, no wave form data is available for this quake, while such data is usually available for land-based quakes in Cal and Wash. Again, I wonder why.


[edit on 3/12/08 by JustMike]

posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 03:12 AM
Just an addendum to my previous post, in regards to the Nov 29 mag 4.0 quake off Washington: if any other members can confirm my observation that if was not published prior to today Dec 03, could you please state this in a post on this thread? If on the contrary you did see it on the maps prior to today, please say so. It is essential that our observations can be seen as reasonably reliable, especially in light of the possibility of an inquiry into this matter in the future.

Another point for us to consider: the map images I've posted on here are linked to a hosting site, and as you all know such sites can "pull" any images at any time without needing to give a reason. That's their prerogative; very often, all it requires is a request or complaint from someone. Such sites can also be hacked.

For these reasons, I have backup copies of all images, stored off my computer and inaccessible to hackers. Their file names always include full details of exactly what they represent, and except for the "gif" file I posted, expert analysis can prove that they are untampered screen shots. I'd suggest that other members who post images also back them up (away from their on-line computer), so that if our images on here get taken down -- or our own computers get hacked -- those images will still be available if needed in the future.


posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 03:16 AM
reply to post by ANNED

Thank you for your post! Are the main-stream media (MSM) in your region reporting on this? We would be glad for any information. If you've been following the thread for a while, you will see that the USGS and its affiliates seem to be engaging in some rather un-scientific practices in respect of either delaying release of information (or withholding it), or even deleting it. So, any other sources of information are most welcome.


<< 69  70  71    73  74  75 >>

log in