It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Quake Watch 2010

page: 14
123
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Missouri helicorder image here:


folkworm.ceri.memphis.edu...




posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 07:41 PM
link   
MAG UTC DATE-TIME
y/m/d h:m:s LAT
deg LON
deg DEPTH
km LOCATION
MAP 1.6 2010/03/02 23:59:47 36.790 -89.340 8.1 4 km ( 3 mi) SSW of Anniston, MO
MAP 3.7 2010/03/02 19:37:35 36.788 -89.357 8.2 3 km ( 2 mi) ENE of East Prairie, MO



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 07:47 PM
link   
Look's like nothing near the New Madrid fault zone going back all the way to the 23rd of Feb. on the USGS 1.0 mag or more listing, so something is brewing in there since our Chile disruption a few days ago. Have to keep an eye on this....



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 08:03 PM
link   
I have been following all the earthquake posts on ATS. I have been wondering if New Madrid would wake up.
I have lived in N Central Ky all my life. Back in the late 70's/early 80's, the first and only earthquake I ever experienced happened here. It was a warm sunny afternoon. I'll never forget it. I was in the front yard. It started with a rumble or a roaring sound, then the ground shook. It made my knees feel weak.
I had no idea what had happened, having not experienced it before. Does anyone know of the quake I'm referring to or know where I could get this information? I'm curious to how strong that quake was compared to the ones today and see where the epicenter was........



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 08:04 PM
link   
I live on the new madrid fault and this has me concerned! For one thing here, the soil is not rocky. We will experience liquefaction. Like standing on a bowl of jello. My father in law used to tell us about a quake here that he remembered and said that the ground moved like waves on the water.
We had a 5.2 here a few years ago, this may sound nuts, the shaking didn't scare me...the sound did! We have an airport close by and we heard this uncommon roar and I asked my husband if a jet was flying over to low.... then the shaking came.... I was in tears! That noise will be with me forever!



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by kennylee
 


Have a look at this link through the USGS database, I think this is the one you are looking for - happened in 1980, 5.2, and gives you information about it. USGS Kentucky 1980 eathquake



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Greenize
I live on the new madrid fault and this has me concerned! For one thing here, the soil is not rocky. We will experience liquefaction. Like standing on a bowl of jello. My father in law used to tell us about a quake here that he remembered and said that the ground moved like waves on the water.
We had a 5.2 here a few years ago, this may sound nuts, the shaking didn't scare me...the sound did! We have an airport close by and we heard this uncommon roar and I asked my husband if a jet was flying over to low.... then the shaking came.... I was in tears! That noise will be with me forever!


i think in the year 2000 there was an earthquake in 29 palms, CA that was...maybe close to a 6 or 7. it was a couple hours from my house but the sound of it coming woke up from a dead sleep. i never used to wake up in the bay area for earthquakes, slept through them. in fact, liked them. the sound itself was terrifying, the shaking was like i had never experienced. a rolling more than a shaking.
anyways, thought it was interesting you heard an earthquake too. most people look at me like i'm nuts when i talk abou that. hah



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 08:26 PM
link   
5.4 in Chile, no doubt just an aftershock, but it`s big enough to be included in this thread I felt. Just happened 20mins ago.




5.4 offshore, Maul, Chile


Edit to add::

Actually, on closer look, there have plenty in the last day of around about that magnitude. Probably this one isn`t really worth bothering about. Sorry to have disturbed yous.
xx



[edit on 2-3-2010 by psilo simon]



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by earthchild
reply to post by kennylee
 


Have a look at this link through the USGS database, I think this is the one you are looking for - happened in 1980, 5.2, and gives you information about it. USGS Kentucky 1980 eathquake


Thanks a lot! That would be the one. I had no idea that the epicenter was in Ky, not to many miles from where I was at. I'd hate to feel a much bigger than that.

There was also a small one back in 2008, but I was on my motorcycle at the time. It did feel like I was getting a flat tire. I pulled off the road to check. That night I heard it was an earthquake. Louisville, an hour away, had some damage.

Could New Madrid be waking up? If the Chile quake caused the small quakes today, that might be all it will do, or maybe not. The strong aftershocks still coming out of Chile worries me. The Earth is shaking all over.



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 09:16 PM
link   
My Post with reference to Earthquake Detection as promulgated by RussianScientists aka David Berger.

Post in the Yellowstone thread

First we need to establish that this has relevance to Yellowstone - Established but see later

Secondly we need to establish your credentials. Where were you a geologist, and in what area of geology? - Not established - see later.

Other posts from the Yellowstone thread that are relevant

Mapsurfer

Pantangele

Your response [lifted from the Yellowstone thread]


Originally posted by RussianScientists
reply to post by PuterMan
 


...all of the information that you ask is in the videos. I posted early in this thread and my posts then were 100% correct also.... As I stated early on in this thread I studied Old Faithful in 2006 in Yellowstone National Park, and I made some excellent discoveries as stated in my videos.

www.youtube.com...

and your last question is answered in the videos also


I have now watched all 22 videos and so far my findings are as follows:

With regard to the relevance to Yellowstone I concur that this is established as you have apparently made measurements at Yellowstone. Your first post in the Yellowstone thread stated:


Right now there is not that much material above the volcanic plume under the area, so there is no reason to worry about a volcanic explosion of any great magnitude for any time soon.

On the other hand, yes you could expect "at least one" fairly good sized earthquake to strike before it's all over; and I mean an earthquake in the 5.0+ range.


Your first sentence seems to me to possibly be contradicting itself [I am prepared to be corrected on that], and the second prognosis was in fact wrong. Your excellent discovery in Yellowstone seems to be that the 'radiation' of which you speak apparently comes in pulses rather than the saw tooth waveform you propose for 'normal radiation'. We will come to radiation in a while. You have made 13 posts in the Yellowstone thread, 8 on the 2nd Jan 2009, none of which could be said to be revelations and the likelihood of being right was 100% at the outset. The remainder were all yesterday.

With regard to my second question establishing your credentials, all that you mentioned in passing was that you attended Wichita State University. Nit-picking here. I assume that since you are retired you would have attended WSU when it was The Municipal University of Wichita. In the videos you did not once [unless your comment was drowned out by the wind] state that you read Geology, or indeed if you specialised in any area of Geology. You also did not mention if you were subsequently employed as a Geologist. Please note that I am not saying that you are not a geologist, simply that you did not confirm this.

With regard to my third question, I assume that you allude to the formula

Effective Instrument Range in miles = (Magnitude x 100) - 100

as an answer as to why you could not/did not make any move to notify earthquakes such as Haiti and Chile. Your answer is accepted.

You mentioned in the videos that you offered this to the USGS, at least I think that is what you said but the wind was blowing adding to the noise from traffic, a Hog and a motorboat all of which served as ample distraction from your presentation. Frankly, if your presentation was anything akin to these videos, I am not in the least surprised that your idea was rejected. Lose the shades, bring the whole thing indoors and get some proper presentational diagrams.

I could have done all of those on Power point with no problem at all and the whole thing would have not only been slick and professional but would have something people could take away to digest. This modern trend for dumping everything onto a video presentation (often badly) does nothing at all for serious discussion. I have made notes all the way through the presentation, but even a mere hour later, the exact detail of what they refer to begins to fade.

So to your theories. Piezoelectric energy generation in earthquakes is not a new idea, and may as I believe you stated by responsible for the colours sometimes seen at earthquake sites. I am not sure that I understand why these should come in 15, 30, 45, 30,15 minute cycles, and you did not really explain but no matter for the present. I am absolutely not a mathematician or an electrical engineer but there are those on these threads who are either or both so don't slap me down too hard when I say that I am assuming that this piezoelectric detection has something to do with polarisation, however if this is what you are calling 'radiation' then I do not understand how this can pass through solid mass. This is not sonar, or is it?

At no time do you give any hint as to how this piece of equipment functions except one remark that it is optical in some respect. If your idea is so secret that you cannot event mention it and have to have this instrument made by 5 or 7 manufacturers, none of whom know what the part they are making is intended for (the British super gun for Iraq was made like this), then you should patent it.

Whilst the concept is interesting at present there is nothing at all to back it up. Without details you can hardly expect any organisation to part with tens of thousands of dollars for an item of equipment that is, to all intents and purposes, only a concept until you present the instrument you have made. Of course you need to protect your ideas and thus should patent the device.

Time for bed said Zebedee (it's after 3am here)



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 09:26 PM
link   
I am from Indiana and in 2002, around June or July I believe we had a 4.0, and then we had another couple of small quakes about a year ago...I can't remember what magnitude they were, but they were pretty decent ones. I was asleep when the first one hit. I woke up to a loud bang, then the bed started to shake..took a second to figure out what was going on. Then later that day, we had an aftershock, it only lasted a few seconds, but was big enough to be noticed. I would not be surprised to see another quake this year... In fact, I've been bracing for it. I think the last two we had here have me shook up still. I'm not fond of the earth shaking.



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 10:40 PM
link   
quake.usgs.gov... Coso

www.nationalatlas.gov... is a volcano

Earthquake List for map 118-36

MAG DATE LOCAL-TIME LAT LON DEPTH LOCATION
y/m/d h:m:s deg deg km

1.6 2010/03/02 12:42:46 35.983N 117.325W 6.1 24 km (15 mi) N of Trona, CA
1.8 2010/03/02 11:53:46 35.058N 118.312W 0.0 12 km ( 8 mi) WNW of Mojave, CA
1.1 2010/03/02 09:58:24 36.062N 117.866W 4.9 8 km ( 5 mi) ENE of Coso Junction, CA
1.7 2010/03/02 06:39:00 36.064N 117.873W 3.0 7 km ( 4 mi) ENE of Coso Junction, CA
0.5 2010/03/02 02:42:34 36.070N 117.881W 4.2 7 km ( 4 mi) ENE of Coso Junction, CA
0.4 2010/03/02 01:21:35 36.065N 117.866W 5.2 8 km ( 5 mi) ENE of Coso Junction, CA
1.2 2010/03/02 00:30:21 36.058N 117.870W 4.7 7 km ( 4 mi) ENE of Coso Junction, CA
1.1 2010/03/02 00:20:27 36.060N 117.866W 5.0 8 km ( 5 mi) ENE of Coso Junction, CA
0.7 2010/03/02 00:03:41 36.064N 117.868W 4.8 8 km ( 5 mi) ENE of Coso Junction, CA
1.4 2010/03/01 23:48:52 36.061N 117.873W 2.4 7 km ( 4 mi) ENE of Coso Junction, CA
1.9 2010/03/01 23:26:15 36.066N 117.881W 2.1 7 km ( 4 mi) ENE of Coso Junction, CA
2.2 2010/03/01 23:23:28 36.063N 117.860W 3.4 8 km ( 5 mi) ENE of Coso Junction, CA
3.5 2010/03/01 23:22:53 36.065N 117.873W 2.5 7 km ( 4 mi) ENE of Coso Junction, CA
1.5 2010/03/01 22:57:32 36.066N 117.869W 3.5 7 km ( 5 mi) ENE of Coso Junction, CA
1.0 2010/03/01 21:31:10 36.053N 117.872W 5.2 7 km ( 4 mi) E of Coso Junction, CA
0.8 2010/03/01 15:16:45 36.065N 117.860W 5.3 8 km ( 5 mi) ENE of Coso Junction, CA
1.0 2010/03/01 11:05:30 35.989N 117.037W 0.0 21 km (13 mi) SSE of Telescope Peak, CA
1.4 2010/03/01 08:29:16 36.092N 117.866W 0.0 9 km ( 6 mi) NE of Coso Junction, CA
1.2 2010/03/01 08:29:00 35.951N 117.629W 4.4 30 km (19 mi) NW of Searles Valley, CA
0.8 2010/03/01 08:25:03 36.070N 117.872W 4.2 7 km ( 5 mi) ENE of Coso Junction, CA
0.6 2010/03/01 06:49:36 36.064N 117.882W 2.7 6 km ( 4 mi) ENE of Coso Junction, CA
0.9 2010/03/01 05:41:49 36.062N 117.878W 5.3 7 km ( 4 mi) ENE of Coso Junction, CA
2.1 2010/03/01 04:36:38 36.069N 117.881W 2.4 7 km ( 4 mi) ENE of Coso Junction, CA
2.3 2010/03/01 02:50:57 36.069N 117.875W 0.6 7 km ( 4 mi) ENE of Coso Junction, CA
1.2 2010/03/01 02:46:49 36.070N 117.885W 2.2 6 km ( 4 mi) ENE of Coso Junction, CA
2.8 2010/03/01 02:40:00 36.065N 117.882W 1.9 6 km ( 4 mi) ENE of Coso Junction, CA
2.6 2010/03/01 02:39:40 36.065N 117.876W 2.5 7 km ( 4 mi) ENE of Coso Junction, CA
2.8 2010/03/01 02:32:07 36.064N 117.870W 2.2 7 km ( 5 mi) ENE of Coso Junction, CA
1.2 2010/03/01 01:29:56 36.065N 117.867W 4.3 8 km ( 5 mi) ENE of Coso Junction, CA
1.9 2010/03/01 01:24:05 36.066N 117.868W 2.7 8 km ( 5 mi) ENE of Coso Junction, CA
0.6 2010/03/01 01:20:38 36.056N 117.871W 4.8 7 km ( 4 mi) E of Coso Junction, CA
2.1 2010/03/01 01:16:04 36.069N 117.871W 2.2 7 km ( 5 mi) ENE of Coso Junction, CA
3.8 2010/03/01 01:06:03 36.070N 117.879W 0.9 7 km ( 4 mi) ENE of Coso Junction, CA
1.0 2010/03/01 00:12:01 36.069N 117.869W 4.4 8 km ( 5 mi) ENE of Coso Junction, CA
1.5 2010/02/28 21:03:24 36.100N 117.798W 7.9 15 km ( 9 mi) ENE of Coso Junction, CA
1.3 2010/02/28 20:46:10 36.063N 117.872W 2.8 7 km ( 4 mi) ENE of Coso Junction, CA
1.7 2010/02/28 18:20:36 36.064N 117.870W 3.0 7 km ( 5 mi) ENE of Coso Junction, CA
1.1 2010/02/28 17:04:19 36.039N 117.819W 1.3 12 km ( 7 mi) E of Coso Junction, CA
1.5 2010/02/28 16:23:23 35.805N 118.537W 5.5 12 km ( 7 mi) NW of Kernville, CA
1.3 2010/02/28 14:30:27 36.060N 117.874W 2.9 7 km ( 4 mi) ENE of Coso Junction, CA
1.5 2010/02/28 07:59:36 36.066N 117.873W 4.1 7 km ( 4 mi) ENE of Coso Junction, CA
1.5 2010/02/28 06:22:33 36.068N 117.860W 4.8 8 km ( 5 mi) ENE of Coso Junction, CA
0.9 2010/02/27 23:13:22 36.070N 117.875W 4.2 7 km ( 4 mi) ENE of Coso Junction, CA
2.6 2010/02/27 23:08:47 36.062N 117.879W 2.4 7 km ( 4 mi) ENE of Coso Junction, CA
3.1 2010/02/27 22:56:28 36.061N 117.879W 2.7 6 km ( 4 mi) ENE of Coso Junction, CA
1.8 2010/02/27 22:38:04 36.071N 117.871W 4.1 7 km ( 5 mi) ENE of Coso Junction, CA
2.6 2010/02/27 22:30:41 36.060N 117.878W 1.1 7 km ( 4 mi) ENE of Coso Junction, CA
3.4 2010/02/27 22:30:17 36.060N 117.882W 0.9 6 km ( 4 mi) ENE of Coso Junction, CA
1.8 2010/02/27 18:26:15 36.069N 117.865W 4.3 8 km ( 5 mi) ENE of Coso Junction, CA
1.8 2010/02/27 15:25:46 36.061N 117.891W 2.5 5 km ( 3 mi) ENE of Coso Junction, CA
2.7 2010/02/27 12:23:53 36.058N 117.890W 2.7 5 km ( 3 mi) ENE of Coso Junction, CA
1.5 2010/02/27 11:56:39 36.065N 117.882W 2.9 6 km ( 4 mi) ENE of Coso Junction, CA
1.5 2010/02/27 11:08:06 36.057N 117.885W 2.5 6 km ( 4 mi) ENE of Coso Junction, CA
1.5 2010/02/27 10:59:30 36.087N 117.876W 4.0 8 km ( 5 mi) NE of Coso Junction, CA
1.6 2010/02/27 07:19:21 36.067N 117.880W 3.0 7 km ( 4 mi) ENE of Coso Junction, CA
3.2 2010/02/27 07:01:35 36.066N 117.884W 1.9 6 km ( 4 mi) ENE of Coso Junction, CA
3.1 2010/02/27 05:56:38 36.065N 117.885W 2.3 6 km ( 4 mi) ENE of Coso Junction, CA
1.6 2010/02/27 05:54:15 36.063N 117.881W 2.3 6 km ( 4 mi) ENE of Coso Junction, CA
0.6 2010/02/27 02:36:27 36.071N 117.880W 0.0 7 km ( 4 mi) ENE of Coso Junction, CA
1.5 2010/02/27 01:34:54 36.067N 117.883W 1.3 6 km ( 4 mi) ENE of Coso Junction, CA
2.3 2010/02/26 23:21:54 36.069N 117.888W 2.0 6 km ( 4 mi) ENE of Coso Junction, CA
3.5 2010/02/26 23:10:48 36.062N 117.888W 0.6 6 km ( 4 mi) ENE of Coso Junction, CA
2.1 2010/02/26 23:01:03 36.071N 117.882W 1.5 7 km ( 4 mi) ENE of Coso Junction, CA
2.9 2010/02/26 22:56:03 36.073N 117.878W 2.5 7 km ( 4 mi) ENE of Coso Junction, CA
1.9 2010/02/26 20:52:15 36.068N 117.873W 5.2 7 km ( 5 mi) ENE of Coso Junction, CA
1.1 2010/02/26 18:45:31 36.065N 117.867W 4.6 8 km ( 5 mi) ENE of Coso Junction, CA
1.8 2010/02/26 17:25:17 35.932N 117.259W 6.3 21 km (13 mi) NNE of Trona, CA
1.1 2010/02/26 17:25:04 35.931N 117.265W 6.7 21 km (13 mi) NNE of Trona, CA
2.8 2010/02/26 12:12:04 36.057N 117.888W 2.4 6 km ( 3 mi) ENE of Coso Juncti

My 2 cents thrown in.



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by saralee
 


That is rather unnerving! I have a question though... is this normal for this area, I mean so many within that time span?



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


Puterman, you state that my statement of:

"On the other hand, yes you could expect "at least one" fairly good sized earthquake to strike before it's all over; and I mean an earthquake in the 5.0+ range."

Puterman statement regarding my statement:

"and the second prognosis was in fact wrong"

On the contrary Puterman my prognosis is in fact correct. The Yellowstone Swarm Activity is not over yet and my 5.0+ earthquake will still strike before its all over; just exactly as I have stated before.

[edit on 3-3-2010 by RussianScientists]



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 04:12 AM
link   
Hi Folks, Is anyone else getting a missing amount of data from USGS?



Something does not look right there.

UPDATE: Looks as if it has been sorted. I now have data in the gap.

[edit on 3/3/2010 by PuterMan]



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 04:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by RussianScientists
reply to post by PuterMan
 


Puterman, you state that my statement of:

"On the other hand, yes you could expect "at least one" fairly good sized earthquake to strike before it's all over; and I mean an earthquake in the 5.0+ range."

Puterman statement regarding my statement:

"and the second prognosis was in fact wrong"

On the contrary Puterman my prognosis is in fact correct. The Yellowstone Swarm Activity is not over yet and my 5.0+ earthquake will still strike before its all over; just exactly as I have stated before.

[edit on 3-3-2010 by RussianScientists]


May I remind you that the comment that you made about the 5.0+ at Yellowstone was made on the 2nd January 2009 NOT 2010. This is the post. Please note the date.

I have to assume that at the time you were referring to the then current swarm and therefore before that swarm was over you were indeed wrong and a 5.0+ did not occur.

If your wording of 'before it is all over' referred to some other period in excess of one year which at the time one could not reasonably be expected to deduce, then you should have stated something along the lines of 'when this is all over in 2011...'

I await your comments on the rest of my review with interest.


[edit on 3/3/2010 by PuterMan]



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 05:02 AM
link   
So, what's the word for 2010?!

Already, we've got Haiti, Japan, and Chile with HUGE ones, and a few other 'minor' ones - how are we stacking up, so far with past years?

A lot of people use the supposed 'uptick' in seismic activity as supporting arguments in other threads. Obviously, earthquakes happen ALL the time, on a semi-regular basis (way more than people hear in the news), but, what's the real story here?

If I can't get a straight answer from the quake-freaks in this thread, it ain't happenin'.

Thx.



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 


In my opinion as a 'quake freak' I would say that there is nothing out of the ordinary so far this year, but it is early yet. Haiti and Chile were big, but not particularly unexpected or out of the ordinary (you may take issue with that!). What is different this year is the number of deaths attributed to earthquakes, but that is because of the circumstances in Haiti and not - if you understand what I am saying - because of the severity of the quake. Japan really has been a non event so far as far as I am concerned. There are always largish quakes in this area.

I believe it is too early yet to see if there is any fallout from Chile.

You should find this information useful. You can see for example that generally there was a trend in 2009 for a lessening of virtually all levels of quake. Whether this continues to be the case in 2010 remains to be seen.

Edit: Just thought I would add a graph of the table in that document for you. You can easily see the 2009 decrease in this.





[edit on 3/3/2010 by PuterMan]



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Just thought you might like to see the cumulative plot for Chile.

This is the plot of the Daily Number of Quakes not the magnitude (but all of these are over 4.0)




posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Hellmutt
 


I dont know where to ask so I thought I would ask here.

I was looking at the USGS site and the list of all the quakes in the last couple weeks. I noticed there werent any quakes in Chile before the big one hit and now there are tons daily in Chile and around. Is this what happens when a big one hits? Are there lots of aftershocks? Should there be quakes before a big one or do they just happen?

I find all the earthquakes and the information I have been reading about fault lines and such to be very interesting. The questions I ask however dont seem to be anywhere I have looked...or maybe I am looking in the wrong place.


while typing this my screen shook and it showed a 4.9 offshore Libertador O'Higgins, Chile..... I have the earthquake add on
it's great!




top topics



 
123
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join