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: 81
<< 78  79  80    82  83  84 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 14 2008 @ 12:52 PM
2008 December 14 17:41:06 UTC
3.3 km (2.1 miles)
Distances 26 km (16 miles) NNE (13°) from Trona, CA

All the geyser and hot spring areas, and Long Valley caldera, for that matter, are still active. Not over yet.

[edit on 12/14/08 by kattraxx]

posted on Dec, 14 2008 @ 01:19 PM
reply to post by observe50

Hi Observe,

I've noted down the time you mentioned. Worth posting it, just in case. Stranger things have been known to happen.

I think the place with trees burning was in Colorado... No, wait a second, that was the one with the boy who got his shoes burned by walking through a park. Weird case, that one. It's in the thread here some way back. I remember the "official" explanation was that sunshine ignited coal dust that had been lying out in the open for decades.
(800-degree F sunshine, I guess...) So with the one you mentioned... I'd have to dig for info on it.

By the way, I've sent you an email with some advice about what you can do to help solve your computer problems.


posted on Dec, 14 2008 @ 01:38 PM
Did anyone else happen to notice the "magnitude undetermined" quake in Central Alaska that popped up on the Nth America maps about four hours ago? (It didn't come up on the USA maps, only the Nth American ones.) Well anyway it disappeared off the maps after around half an hour. I just wondered, because this quake was only a little ways NE from where the HAARP facility is located. (Not that I'm implying anything, mind you...

posted on Dec, 14 2008 @ 02:10 PM
reply to post by JustMike

I'm not sure if this is the Alaska quake you're refering to but there's one on the RSOE website showing as 4.5. LINK

posted on Dec, 14 2008 @ 02:17 PM
reply to post by Maya00a

Hi Maya00a!!
Hmmm.... I hadn't thought of looking there... But no, that quake was yesterday evening my time. This one was just under five hours ago.

Errrmm.. I took screen shots of the data page and the maps (showing it there then gone).
Anyone think it's worth posting them?

[edit on 14/12/08 by JustMike]

posted on Dec, 14 2008 @ 11:02 PM
Based on the very active geyser and hot springs areas in California today, I believe there will be a 4.5 to 5.0 within the next 72 hours.

Date-Time Monday, December 15, 2008 at 04:24:24 UTC
Sunday, December 14, 2008 at 08:24:24 PM at epicenter
Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones

Location 38.831°N, 122.803°W
Depth 2.2 km (1.4 miles)
Distances 4 km (2 miles) N (5°) from The Geysers, CA

posted on Dec, 15 2008 @ 12:20 AM
Hello all. I am not having a headache tonight, thank goodness I need a break from it! I am though having an unbelievable craving for popcorn, which is I think a precursor to a volcano possibly? I not only am craving it, I can smell it! I even went around and asked ( I am at work) if someone had cooked some in the breakfast area recently, no body has. I also have pressure in my head, but no pain at this time. It is 120am est.

posted on Dec, 15 2008 @ 03:53 AM
453am est, I am getting pains under my ribs, right side only. Tones are doubling over each other again, both tones are high this time, not the usual for when I can hear two, usually one is high and one is low.

posted on Dec, 15 2008 @ 11:46 PM
One you don't see every day...

Magnitude 4.7 - SWEDEN
2008 December 16 05:20:00 UTC
Date-Time Tuesday, December 16, 2008 at 05:20:00 UTC
Tuesday, December 16, 2008 at 06:20:00 AM at epicenter
Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones

Location 55.620°N, 13.620°E
Depth 10 km (6.2 miles) set by location program
Distances 40 km (25 miles) E of Malmo, Sweden
65 km (40 miles) E of COPENHAGEN, Denmark

posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 12:48 AM
What alternative method do you think Jim Berkland was using when he made the following upcoming mega quake prediction, that was posted in the "Only 10 days Left-Until Huge Predicted Earthquakes" on page 30?

Originally posted by Red Cloak
OK, I was finally able to get a hold of the earthquake scientist Jim Berkland, the scientist that was able to accurately predict the 1994 Northridge, California earthquake before it happened. I asked him about this issue and everything being said about it.

I was told the following (and PLEASE note that I am NOT trying to make a prediction, nor scare anyone, I'm just stating what he said):

"Based on the nature of the supermoon phase of the period in and around December 12th, 2008, and the relationship of the heavenly bodies' gravitational pull towards the mainly affected fault zones on the Earth, I am able to estimate that there is an 85% probability that a magnitude 8 plus megaquake or a series of magnitude 8 plus megaquakes will strike in the New Madrid fault zone like happened previously in the years 1811-1812. This means that within a period of time from December 12th to roughly 2-3 weeks after that there is an 85% chance that a megaquake or a series of megaquakes will hit in the Arkansas/Missouri New Madrid fault zone area."

posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 05:27 AM
reply to post by RussianScientists

Hello RussianScientists,

the answer is that Mr Berkland did not make that prediction and so there need be no discussion of "method". That so-called "prediction" was a hoax posted by RedCloak. The same statement by RedCloak appears in the "*Serious Warnings* Alert* Earthquake* Postings* Please Read" thread and Kattrax responded to it on this page of that thread. There is a link you can follow in her post, which ultimately takes you to the source for Jim Berkland's actual predictions on his own website for the period Dec 10-17, 2008, which were posted on Dec 3, 2008.

You can see that Mr Berkland's actual predictions bear no relation to the hoax "prediction" posted by RedCloak. In fact, no magnitude 8 quakes for anywhere in Nth America are mentioned in the prediction on Berkland's official site, and the New Madrid region is not mentioned at all. (This is one reason why we prefer to check back to the original source when such claims are made. As you would appreciate, it is scientifically prudent to view extreme claims with some suspicion and to confirm sources.) A little later RedCloak himself replied on the "Serious Warnings [etc etc]" thread and made the point that he posted it as a form of what called "sarcasm".

In other words, what he posted was a hoax and he knew it. The fact that he posted hoax material does not seem to be important to him, which is a pity.

Regarding your own posts, I am interested in your methods. I recall you said that you can detect upcoming quakes some days prior by measuring ground pressure. This is interesting. The thing I'm most interested in is what you said in a post on Dec 14. The whole post is much longer but this part caught my interest the most:

Detection is coming straight out of the region of Wichita, Kansas. A 5.0+ magnitude earthquake at this time would be detectable for more than 25 miles beyond Memphis, TN from here. A 6.0+ magnitude earthquake at this time would be detectable for more than 125 to the east of Memphis, TN from here. A 7.0 magnitude earthquake at this time would be detectable for more than 225 miles to the east of Memphis, TN from here. A 8.0 magnitude earthquake at this time would be detectable for more than 325 miles to the east of Memphis, TN from here. A 9.0 magnitude earthquake at this time would be detectable for more than 425 miles east of Memphis, TN from here at this particular point in time with the ground pressure values so extremely low. So no, I don't need to have any equipment at New Madrid, MO as you can see.

I notice that there are 100-mile intervals between these various magnitudes that can be detected. It is effectively like a linear scale. However, as the energies involved between the different magnitudes are not linear, but logarithmic, with (for example) a mag 9.0 having about 10 times the ground motion displacement of a mag 8 and 100 times that of a mag 7, and the energy release of a mag 9 being approximately 32 times that of an 8 and 32x32 (1024) times that of a mag 7 (reference from USGS facts and statistics), it would seem that even allowing for some losses within the detection system, those distances for detection that you state do not match very well in proportion to the energies involved.

Could you explain why this is?

[edit on 16/12/08 by JustMike]

posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 11:28 AM
M 3.6, South Carolina

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 12:42:16 UTC
Tuesday, December 16, 2008 07:42:16 AM at epicenter
5.00 km (3.11 mi)

M 2.2, southeastern Missouri

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 07:20:42 UTC
Tuesday, December 16, 2008 01:20:42 AM at epicenter
12.00 km (7.46 mi)

Funny how many other threads have popped up.. and how many are insanely disjointed. Seems to me people cobble together bits and pieces from other threads or words they have come across, throw webbot in front of it and claim it as a EQ prediction.

The really interesting quake we have had in the last few days is the Swedish quake.. just seems like an odd place to have one.

posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 11:41 AM
reply to post by pynner

The South Carolina EQ surprised me too, when I saw it this morning. Just yesterday, I was looking at a list on USGS that I wanted to post, but it wouldn't cooperate while I was trying to resize it. Anyway, it was a list of the strongest EQ in each U.S. state, and the one that popped out to me was South Carolina... 7.3.

State Date Time Location Magnitude Intensity
UTC Latitude Longitude
Alabama 1916 10 18 22:04 33.5N 86.5W 5.1 VII
Alaska 1964 03 28 03:36:14.0 61.04N 147.73W 9.2 X
Arizona 1959 07 21 17:39:29 36.80N 112.37W 5.6 VI
Arkansas 1811 12 16 08:15 35.6N 90.4W ~8.2 - 8.1 XI
California 1857 01 09 16:24 35.7N 120.3W 7.9 IX
California 1906 04 18 13:12:21 37.75N 122.55W 7.8 XI
Colorado 1882 11 08 01:30 40.5N 105.5W 6.2 VII
Connecticut 1791 05 16 13:00 41.5N 72.5W VII
Delaware 1871 10 09 14:40 39.7N 75.5W VII
Florida 1780 02 06 30.4N 87.2W VI
Florida 1879 01 13 04:45 29.5N 82.0W VI
Georgia 1914 03 05 20:05 33.5N 83.5W 4.5 V
Hawaii 1868 04 03 02:25 19.0N 155.5W 7.9 X
Idaho 1983 10 28 14:06:06.5 43.974N 113.916W 6.9 IX
Illinois 1968 11 09 17:01:40.5 37.911N 88.373W 5.4 VII
Indiana 1909 09 27 09:45 39.8N 87.2W 5.1 VII
Iowa 1905 04 13 16:30 40.4N 91.4W V
Kansas 1867 04 24 20:22 39.2N 96.3W 5.1 VII
Kentucky 1980 07 27 18:52:21.4 38.193N 83.891W 5.2 VII
Louisiana 1930 10 19 12:17 30.0N 91.0W 4.2 VI
Maine 1904 03 21 06:04 45.0N 67.2W 5.1 VII
Maryland 1990 01 13 20:47:55.3 39.425N 76.881W 2.6 V
Massachusetts 1755 11 18 09:11:35 42.7N 70.3W VIII
Michigan 1947 08 10 02:46:41.3 41.928N 85.004W 4.6 VI
Minnesota 1975 07 09 14:54:15.1 45.669N 96.041W 4.6 VI
Mississippi 1931 12 17 03:36 33.8N 90.1W 4.6 VI
Missouri 1812 02 07 09:45 36.5N 89.6W ~7.4 - 8.0 XII
Montana 1959 08 18 06:37:13.5 44.712N 111.215W 7.3 X
Nebraska 1877 11 15 17:45 41.0N 97.0W 5.1 VII
Nebraska 1964 03 28 10:08:46.5 42.997N 101.798W 5.1 VII
Nevada 1932 12 21 06:10:05 38.51N 118.08W 7.2 X
New Hampshire 1940 12 20 07:27:26.2 43.872N 71.370W 5.5 VII
New Hampshire 1940 12 24 13:43:45.0 43.908N 71.283W 5.5 VII
New Jersey 1783 11 30 03:50 41.0N 74.5W 5.3 VI
New Mexico 1906 11 15 12:15 34.0N 107.0W VII
New York 1944 09 05 04:38:45.7 44.958N 74.723W 5.8 VIII
North Carolina 1916 02 21 23:39 35.5N 82.5W 5.2 VII
North Dakota 1909 05 16 04:15 49.0N 104.0W 5.5 VI
Ohio 1937 03 09 05:44:35.5 40.470N 84.280W 5.4 VIII
Oklahoma 1952 04 09 16:29:28.4 35.525N 97.850W 5.5 VII
Oregon 1910 08 05 01:31:36 42.0N 127.0W 6.8 Felt
Oregon 1993 09 21 03:28:55.4 42.314N 122.012W 6.0 VII
Pennsylvania 1998 09 25 19:52:52.1 41.495N 80.388W 5.2 VI
Rhode Island 1976 03 11 08:29:32.2 41.56N 71.21W 3.5 VI
South Carolina 1886 09 01 02:51 32.9N 80.0W 7.3 X
South Dakota 1911 06 02 22:34 44.2N 98.2W 4.5 V
Tennessee 1865 08 17 15:00 36.0N 89.5W 5.0 VII
Texas 1931 08 16 11:40:22.3 30.502N 104.575W 5.8 VIII
Utah 1934 03 12 15:05:40 41.7N 112.8W 6.6 VIII
Vermont 1962 04 10 14:30:45.2 44.114N 72.972W 4.2 V
Virginia 1897 05 31 18:58 37.3N 80.7W 5.9 VIII
Washington 1872 12 15 05:40 47.9N 120.3W 6.8 IX
West Virginia 1969 11 20 01:00:09.3 37.449N 80.932W 4.5 VI
Wisconsin 1947 05 06 21:27 43.00N 87.90W V
Wyoming 1959 08 18 07:56:16.8 44.699N 110.705W 6.5 Felt

(From the USGS page on lists and maps.)

Edit to add: Link to more information on the historic S. Carolina EQ:

Historic S. Carolina EQ

[edit on 12/16/08 by kattraxx]

posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 12:11 PM
reply to post by RussianScientists

I just finished answering a u2u about Red Cloak's post. She told me that it scared the hell out of her because she lives near the New Madrid fault. And she phoned her family and friends and subsequently scared the hell out of them, and spent the night awake and frightened.

As JustMike said, Jim Berkland never made that prediction. It was a complete fabrication. Jim Berkland has been and still is, on vacation in New Zealand, and I verified this.

Red Cloak claimed, after getting busted on the deception, that his post was "sarcasm", but the fact that he made no attempt to correct subsequent postings by people who obviously believed it, proves the lie. He said nothing until after the fact.

On ATS, we cite our sources for information, we don't create it. So if someone makes a claim like that and can't back it up, ignore it.

And yes, I'll say it-- on this thread, we said all along that we didn't feel anything that would indicate a mega-quake on the New Madrid fault. And if we had, we would've posted it.

[edit on 12/16/08 by kattraxx]

posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 03:36 PM
reply to post by JustMike

Comrad "JustMike" thank you for your information about RedCloak's nefarious dealings; I understand now, thanks.

As to your question of why I have basically 100 mile intervals between magnitudes:

After an earthquake reaches a certain magnitude, the detection area of the size of the earthquake cell increases at approximately 100 mile intervals, as a basic rule of thumb.

If you start studying isoseismal or isoseismic maps, you will see that the area detected before and after an earthquake strikes using this system is very comparable with common isoseismic/isoseismal maps showing the size of an earthquake.

Isoseismic/isoseismal maps don't spread out 10 times farther "on their edges" from one jump up or down in a whole number increase or decrease in an earthquake magnitude; even though the amplitude of the ground shaking has increased 10 times.

Isoseismic/isoseimal maps don't spread out 32 times farther "on their edges" from one jump up or down in a whole number increase or decrease in an earthquake magnitude; even though there was an increase or decrease of 32 times its energy.

So... the data gathered from the equipment is very comparable to isoseismic/isoseismal map reports; exponentially more data is gatherable by using the equipment.

posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 04:55 PM
reply to post by RussianScientists

Thank you for elaborating on what you said about detecting quakes using roughly 100-mile intervals/magnitude. I follow what you mean. Looking at a scientifically-extrapolated isoseismic map of the effects of the New Madrid quake of 1812, the ranges of relative effects follow the pattern you have described:

(Image from a document by the Geological Survey of Alabama. Reproduced for informational and educational purposes. The entire document in PDF format may be accessed here.)

Note: for anyone who might not be familiar with such maps, this one indicates the quake's effective intensity by using the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale, rather than the perhaps better-known Richter scale. The Mercalli uses Roman numerals in the range from I to XII, with I meaning "not felt" and XII meaning "damage nearly total". The epicenter of this quake in 1812 was assigned a Mercalli value of XI.

I understand that in respect of real quakes, the non-linear dropoff in effects is due both to the mathematical fact that a circle of twice the diameter has much more than twice the area (as a function of pi.r squared) and that in any case, because the effects are three-dimensional and the energy is dissipated through the earth's crust, even that simple formula relating to planar area is inadequate. So, considering what you say about your own methods and how they may be compared in some respect to isoseismic mapping, it makes perfect sense, then, that you would have a similar range of detection available.

This is fascinating and could be very valuable for humanity in general... Do you maintain a database of readings that could be made public, or is your work still in the research/experimental stage?

I fully understand that you may need to be cautious in how much you reveal at this stage.


[edit on 16/12/08 by JustMike]

posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 05:51 PM
reply to post by JustMike

Comrad "JustMike" I'm pleased to see that you understand what I'm writing.

No, I don't maintain a data base of all the readings, simply because there would be way too much stuff to keep. As for research and experimental, that is absolute zero. I have done my research and experimenting from the 1970's through about 2002. Since then, I just check it every once in a while, to make sure nothing has changed, and it never changes. The pulses and the cycles are always the same except when humans interfere, and assist in creating earthquakes, then it throws the natural cycles off.

Here is a site with Human Induced Earthquakes, if anyone is interested in reading about Humans creating earthquakes:

Here is another site showing the USGS successfully running experiments in turning on and turning off earthquakes, after their disbelief in a geologist in Colorado that the military was causing earthquakes.

You are very right Mike about being cautious as to what I should reveal, you must be extremely smart to understand all of this so quickly.

posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 07:08 PM
reply to post by kattraxx

Comrad "kattraxx" thanks for backing up JustMike, and explaining in more detail what all was going on.

Kattraxx you seem to be running a very extensive archive here of all types of earthquake data stuff; 80+ pages and growing its amazing!

Are you putting together a book in the future on some of the data you are storing herein and gathering elsewhere? It sure looks like your using this site as a storage site for lots of data for a book; hope it works out well for you, if that is what you are doing.

posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 08:29 PM
reply to post by RussianScientists

Uh, no book plans.

Welcome to the thread. Do you make predictions based on your equipment readings?

2008 December 17 01:27:22 UTC

My bf got Ludlow, CA (general area) pains. I'm still waiting for mine. Anyone else? Space Cadet? Could be up to 4.0. Say 3 days, as mine usually hit within 24 hours.

[edit on 12/16/08 by kattraxx]

posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 10:29 PM
reply to post by kattraxx

Comrad "kattraxx" thanks for the welcome.

No, I don't make predictions. I know what the equipment shows when there is a fault under abnormal pressure, and when there is nothing. It is very simple and children can understand all of it very easily; simple science, no guessing, no magic.

If there is nothing out there seismically showing pressure, then there is no radiation to look at. If there is something out there seismically, showing pressure, then there is a radiation to look at that shows the direction in which the fault under abnormal pressure lays. Both systems/processes back up each others results proving that its all real and does exist.

Staying broadside to the refracted radiation emitted by the fault under abnormal pressure makes it very easy to locate the fault under abnormal pressure, just by viewing it at different stops while one is traveling.

It is far easier and faster to locate a fault under abnormal pressure by viewing its refracted radiaton outline instead of setting up seismic to read the pressure at every stop, and then correlating the figures to determine if you are heading in the right direction still; especially when you are closing in on the fault.

Huge earthquakes or earthquake cells are spectacular to view and to see its pressure seismically. If a person is used to seeing lots of small earthquakes in the 1.0 to 3.0 magnitude range, and then you see the seismic pressure of a 6+ magnitude earthquake using the equipment, it really makes you wake up as to the amount of destruction the larger quakes can do.

On the smaller earthquakes, you have to be very close to the epicenter, within a half-a-mile in order to see a rapid rise in seismic pressure. In the larger earthquakes you can see that same pressure hundreds of miles away from the epicenter.

No, I don't need to predict any earthquakes. I will sell my knowledge this next year. I will first film a series of about 60 or more videos on YouTube with the theme of "How to Scientifically Achieve 100% Accurate Earthquake Forecasts on a Daily Basis Worldwide".

If the governments want to "Forecast Scientifically With 100% Accuracy" where the earthquakes are going to strike days/weeks in advance, and know what the magnitude is days/weeks in advance, and know exactly where the epicenter and foci are days and weeks in advance; then they will simply have their people do it as per my instructions in the videos. As to the time in advance that they can give a warning to evacuate, I suggest it not be more than 3 days in advance; but that is up to them.

After I put the videos out, I will probably ask what the ATS people didn't understand and what else they want to know that is within reason; and I will reply by more videos to those that I deem need replying to.

I want the world to understand all of it, so that the people themselves actually get to go out and do all of it without having to rely upon governments, so that the people can realize that they really do need to evacuate, or at least realize that there is impending danger. There will be no more false predictions from people using unscientific methods.

The last set of videos after the earthquake videos will be videos that will really shock the world and the ATS people.

new topics

top topics

<< 78  79  80    82  83  84 >>

log in