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: 73
<< 70  71  72    74  75  76 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 09:58 AM
That is interesting.I did not receive that alert in my e-mail notification from the USGS.Just checked all my mail and it is not among them.

I read somewhere that sometimes it takes the USGS a while to determine if a quake is a "volcanic quake" caused by magma movement in the vicinity of an active volcano, or a tectonic quake. They normally do not report "volcanic quakes".

[edit on 3-12-2008 by calcoastseeker]

posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 10:25 AM
reply to post by JustMike

JustMike, that 4.0 off the coast of Washington on Saturday, Nov 29 was definitely NOT there before today (Wednesday, Dec. 3). I'm glad you caught it too. I'm quite upset
that it took four days to be posted as I like to keep a close eye on that area.

Are there any other sites you can direct me to that post earthquakes right away, not four days later?

[edit on 3-12-2008 by mountaindog]

posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 11:02 AM
reply to post by calcoastseeker

I didn't receive the usual email alert from USGS either.

And I've been watching the PNW coast closely because I had offshore precursors and was waiting for the EQ all week. That EQ looks to be on the Juan de Fuca ridge, does it not? I said offshore Oregon in my post, but in the future, I'll just name the fault area since it spans the PNW offshore region.

Anyway, I know for a fact that EQ wasn't on the map until JustMike caught it. (Good thing we have a night shift keeping watch for us.) And I never received an EQ alert email from USGS on it.

calcoastseeker, is that some official deal at USGS, not reporting volcanic EQs?
Because I think they're reporting quite a few, whether they admit it or not.

posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 11:11 AM
reply to post by calcoastseeker

calcoastseeker, I was able to open the larger photobucket image of your map today, and see that the area where all the deleted EQ's are, is where some scientists say the remnants of an old supervolcano lies in northern Nevada. I believe I posted some info on it back about ten pages or so. But your map that plots the deleted EQs really puts it into perspective.

Are you still plotting deleted EQs? If so, keep us posted please.

Edit to add: How do you get Google Earth (I have it installed.) to show the volcanoes?

Also, I notice Google Earth shows two volcanoes in the Reno area, which is quite interesting to me since any evidence of anything remotely resembling a volcano was vehemently denied by scientists during our swarm. I'd like to investigate that further. It's the only map I've seen that shows a volcano in/near Reno.

I recall that some time back I posted a Google Earth sat image of the Mogul/Reno area showing a sort of depression in the landscape between the swarm area and Lawton Hot springs, that seems to descend from Cone Peak at 10,000 something feet which lies between Mogul/Reno and Lake Tahoe.

[edit on 12/3/08 by kattraxx]

posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 01:03 PM
see, I thought I was crazy when saw that eq show up... I hadn't noticed it before..

that whole fault line from mexico up through bc is moving...

so on google earth, I really have thing set up now..

the usgs plug in
the volcanoes turned on
and a techtonic plate plugin...

it makes for some interesting stuff and a bit of perspective as to where the action is.

posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 01:04 PM
pynner, can you take a picture of that and show us what it looks like? a pic of what you think is moving?


posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 01:11 PM
I will try and take a pic of the google earth thing and show.. I might have to get kat to post it for me again.. lol


for canada, that's a much more accurate quake map... it helps fill in the blanks that the usgs leaves.

the PNW and van isle are moving much more than we are being led to believe.

posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 01:20 PM
reply to post by pynner

Thanks, pynner.

external image

posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 01:23 PM
From pynner's link:

external image

Am I seeing this right? November 3, 2008 to December 3, 2008...

[edit on 12/3/08 by kattraxx]

posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 01:34 PM
thanks much for the pictures. They really do give you a different sense of what's going on.


posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 01:37 PM
Here is the hot links page from Charlotte King's web site. There are some great links for EQ and volcano information.

Hot Links

If it wasn't for Charlotte and all her research, this thread wouldn't exist.

posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 02:44 PM
Things around Reno just started hopping with a few small EQ's but all within minutes of each other. Nothing huge, but I'm getting these sharp pains I've never had before, which is what prompted me to check the EQ maps. I don't know if these particular pains are the ones Charlotte means for this area, because I had different ones when the Smoke Creek 4.1 hit, but I've emailed and asked her.

external image

posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 05:33 PM
Wow... A lot to catch up on since I was last on here about 15 hours ago. (Long day today.) It's well after midnight now so I won't say much now, except to thank everyone who's dug up some fascinating info -- where volcanoes are and so forth.

I hadn't heard that USGS don't post details of volcano (magma) related quakes. I can't see the sense in them going that way anyway, seeing as some of the biggest quakes in history and pre-history have been linked to volcanic activity. Krakatoa (1883) comes to mind... When it blew it was heard over about 1/4 of the globe, if I recall. (Was heard 1,000 miles away like "the roar of heavy guns"! [Whew!]) And it triggered a lot of quake activity. So did Thera, which wiped out the Minoans when it blew up. And of course there was the last time Yellowstone let rip... (Fortunately quite a while ago.)

In short, not reporting quakes that stem from volcanic activity could be doing us all a dis-service, to put it mildly. But with the way USGS operates, who knows how they make such decisions? If we could get the wave-form data for those offshore NW US quakes, we could submit them to expert analysis to determine if they were magma-effect events or "normal" seismic. But as the USGS will not release wave-form data for quakes in that region, we're working in the dark. It's a pity because they have excellent resources and could help many people a great deal more than they do (and hey, they do give a lot of data, after all -- it's just patchy at times), so let's hope things might improve there in the near future.

Anyway, must go get some shut-eye. I'll try to drop in again in about 8 hours and post a quake map for Nth America to keep things up to date. If I can't, would someone at least take a copy and either post it or hold it in a safe file?

Also we now need to do on-going comparisons between what the Canada experts report and what USGS offers...


Night, all.


[edit on 3/12/08 by JustMike]

posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 03:10 AM
Trying to explain a little what I said earlier.

Volcanologists have no unique and clear definition
on classification of volcanic earthquakes, since the types
of seismic events are different at each volcano, and
change according with activity even at one volcano.
Seismic events which have significant phases and
shorter duration are classified into volcanic earthquakes.

When events have both clear P-phase and S-phase similar to tectonic earthquakes, it is called as volcano-tectonic earthquakes or A-type earthquakes.

In contrast, seismic events which have unclear peak in
amplitude and longer duration are generally called as
volcanic tremors.

And are deleted after review by a seismologist.

Or at least that is what I think the Japanese fellow was trying to tell me.
Here is a pdf he sent me a while back.

I am disturbed by the Canadian quakes that us here in the states don't know about when we just check the USGS site.Looks like someone doesn't want us to see the bigger picture.

[edit on 4-12-2008 by calcoastseeker]

posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 10:05 AM
A lot of activity all around the globe, and I came across this thread, and I posted on it, I think this thread along with ours, might help us get closer to understanding what we dont, plus adding more people to the collective mix.


posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 11:23 AM
This is the USGS map for the past 30 days.

external image

It's also interesting to note the depths of the EQ's on the San Andreas, as being shallow as compared to most of the rest of the world, except Europe perhaps.

I thought it would be easier for comparison, to put pynner's Canadian map next to this one.

external image

[edit on 12/4/08 by kattraxx]

posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 12:28 PM
Another EQ popping onto the map in blue. From yesterday.

Magnitude 3.0
Date-Time Thursday, December 04, 2008 at 02:04:36 UTC
Wednesday, December 03, 2008 at 06:04:36 PM at epicenter
Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones

Location 36.044°N, 114.832°W
Depth 6 km (3.7 miles) set by location program
Distances 13 km (8 miles) NNE (23°) from Boulder City, NV
17 km (11 miles) E (85°) from Henderson, NV
20 km (12 miles) ESE (107°) from East Las Vegas, NV
39 km (24 miles) ESE (115°) from Las Vegas, NV

This EQ would explain the precursor pains yesterday-- Wasatch.

[edit on 12/4/08 by kattraxx]

posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 02:19 PM
Ok, I wanna first start by saying that:

the USGS is totally useless and corrupt. After looking at both the american maps and the canadian maps, it's clear we are not being told the full story.

the amount and size of quakes happening here in Canada is, well, freaky! I mean.. HOLY S**T!

I would love to get my hands on a GE overlay from the canadian geo guys.. I bet we would pick up on a WHOLE lot more stuff.

the amount of quakes that show up around the island (van isle) puts things in perspective.

I can't trust the USGS any more..



im gonna dig up more stuff from webbot

posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 02:41 PM

Originally posted by kattraxx
This is the USGS map for the past 30 days.

external image

That empty spot near oregon/washington which hasn't have any activity according to that map makes me it building up? Its not having any swarms like it was a week or two ago either.

Damn Sometimes I hate living in an earthquake zone.

posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 02:47 PM
Tela!!! I totally agree with the washington/oregon thing!
there are soooo many volcanos in that area, and we are to believe that there is no activity? yeah right

I think that one of the Dec quakes will hit somewhere in that "dead zone".

I keep an eye on st helens web cam.

top topics

<< 70  71  72    74  75  76 >>

log in