Whats going on at yellowstone?, page 99
Pages: <<  96    97    98    99    100    101    102  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 478 times


reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 07:39 PM by LoneInDarkness
reply to post by trusername



No I had found it on this site, it is only a few earthquakes down. Check it out.

Recent Activity - YellowStone



reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 07:40 PM by Shirakawa
reply to post by LoneInDarkness



If it's headed toward known faults (brown lines) I don't think it's a good thing.
Many more other EQs could be triggered.


reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 07:40 PM by trusername
reply to post by Shirakawa



So I downloaded the GEE what are you looking at on it? I thought yellowstone lake was unavailable yesterday - is it up now?


reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 07:40 PM by TrainDispatcher
reply to post by trusername




2.4 2009/01/01 03:12:57 44.325N 110.388W (37.0 Depth km) ESE of West Yellowstone, MT

At this site


reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 07:44 PM by Shirakawa
reply to post by trusername



Try adding TA.H17A (mainly) and TA.H18A broad band seismograph stations.
That's were I discovered these new earthquakes. I've also added TA.H16A but it doesn't get much signal from EQs occurring below Yellowstone lake.



reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 07:44 PM by LoneInDarkness
reply to post by Shirakawa



They are at this rate actually. There are faults just north of the lake and at this rate, if the EQs continue on land they will be there soon. Here take a look at this old link posted to the fault locations.

Fault Lines Present In YellowStone National Park


reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 07:46 PM by trusername
reply to post by LoneInDarkness



Jeez Louise - you're right. That must be a glitch don't you think - they must be entering manually - and since so many of these are 37 miles location - it seems like it's a tired bit of typing. shame it's 2.4 it wont show up on anything that only reports 2.5 and up - to compare.


reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 07:48 PM by dustystrings
reply to post by Knobee


Hadn't tried that. Will get on it, Thanks for the tip!


reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 07:51 PM by Springheel Jack
reply to post by TrainDispatcher



Hey Train,

If you look at the specific details of that EQ they label the location quality as "poor". So I dont think that one is a reliable depth. I thought it was kinda out of the norm for this swarm myself until I noticed that lil bit of info.


reply posted on 1-1-2009 @ 07:53 PM by LoneInDarkness
reply to post by Springheel Jack



On the USGS site I believe they had the depth at 37km +- 15km for error.
Pages: <<  96    97    98    99    100    101    102  >>    ^^TOP^^



The Human Seismograph Says: Big Earthquake Eminent
  Posted 19 days ago with 90 member flags
An unusual tree called Jaboticaba
  Posted 6 days ago with 77 member flags
Haunting pics of abandoned cities around the world
  Posted 1 days ago with 60 member flags
Strange Sounds (UK) published on youtube on 5/13/2012
  Posted 14 days ago with 53 member flags
Pole Shift Data You Shouldn\'t Ignore
  Posted 11 days ago with 46 member flags
Indian state says it\'s OK now to kill tiger poachers on sight
  Posted 3 days ago with 41 member flags