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.

 

Breaking: Earthquake Sumatra, Indonesia Mag 7.8

page: 10
55
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Terapin

Originally posted by projectnsearch
also the fact that we are going through the ecliptic plane of our galaxy


This often repeated belief is actually incorrect. We passed the galactic plane quite some time ago, and are well past it. The last time the Earth was in the galactic plane was several million years ago.


Er, SOURCE?




posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 10:30 AM
link   
earth quakes can come from here, too
man induced

www.popsci.com...

www.altarockenergy.com...

www.swissinfo.ch...

one has to wonder if there are other such projects still ongoing world wide

dr

also, a 6.0 in new guinea an hour ago

earthquake.usgs.gov...



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 10:44 AM
link   
I have no doubt that HAARP is behind this.

I live in Singapore and been reading news every day. As early as 2003, Indonesia announced its intention to build nuclear plant/reactor in Java. Since then, there has been countless earthquakes and aftershocks around its region.

No such thing as coincidence. Seems that God is allowing the humans to play their musical HAARP while they can.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by reject
reply to post by CAPT PROTON
 


let's just hope toba's dead...and all other suprvolcanoes are too. that region of the world has a couple of those and some more that are suspected to be. rest in peace, I say


You need not concern yourself. Toba is NOT dead. There is always some fumarole venting going on on the North side of the island.

And let's face it nothing has happened for 70,000 years and the caldera floor has only risen 450m since the last eruption.


Some parts of the caldera have experienced uplift due to partial refilling of the magma chamber, for example pushing Samosir Island and the Uluan Peninsula above the surface of the lake. The lake sediments on Samosir Island show that it has been uplifted by at least 450 metres[8] since the cataclysmic eruption.


Source but I have seen this elsewhere from some more original research.

Nope it is not dead!

[edit on 7/4/2010 by PuterMan]



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Does anyone else think that perhaps all of the nuke testing in the 40s could attribute to such high quake numbers? Also the Richter Scale was invented in 1935... notice how after that time the numbers seem to get lower... it because they were more accurate. Everything before 1935 had to be translated.

Looking at the most recent (most accurate) data for the last 30 years a pattern does start to form...

8-9.9 Size Quakes
----------------------
1980-1989 : 4
1990-1999 : 6
2000-2009 : 13

I'm sorry Phage but I still must dissagree with you. I also believe that the recent earthquakes have shown us how much the Earth is related to the VERY ACTIVE SUN!~

Just some food for thought...



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by djcubed
 


I am not sure where you are getting your information as you do not quote a source, but I do not disagree with it.

However the 7.0 to 7.9 range is actually less active, and the 6.0 to 6.9 is more active

Magnitude 2000-2009
8.0 to 9.9 13
7.0 to 7.9 131
6.0 to 6.9 1445


Magnitude 1990 - 1999
8.0 to 9.9 6
7.0 to 7.9 147
6.0 to 6.9 1339

I don't have the earlier figures

Source USGS


Actually, you may be right. Don't know if I got this right but...



What you would need to put that against is the number of instruments detecting and I think you might find that there are way more now so more quakes are getting detected.

It is rather like world temperatures in reverse. Remove the instruments and you get an increase.

[edit on 7/4/2010 by PuterMan]



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by djcubed
 

When you are dealing with small numbers (an average of 1 per year) a small spike can make a big difference.
I'll ask you the same thing I asked you before. Why limit it to 30 years?

8.0 and greater.


7.5 and greater




[edit on 4/7/2010 by Phage]



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


Sorry sir... I was in a rush... earthquake.usgs.gov...

Phage... I'm limiting it to 30 years for the reasons provided above... Prior to 1935... there was no scale so all earthquakes were guessed and translated using primitive technology. I am not accounting for the 40s because of the vast number of above/below atomic weapon testing. I have a feeling these test play a part in skewing the numbers.

The last 30 years have been the most accurate in terms of earthquake numbers. 30 years is a good number to study "recent trends".



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by djcubed
 

Just because the Richter scale was not developed until the 1930's doesn't mean the old siesmograms weren't available.

For earthquakes that occurred between about 1890 (when modern seismographs came into use) and 1935 when Charles Richter developed the magnitude scale, people went back to the old records and compared the seismograms from those days with similar records for later earthquakes.

earthquake.usgs.gov...

In any case, a large earthquake is a large earthquake. The magnitude value doesnt' matter a whole lot when you are talking about magnitude 8+.

What on Earth does nuclear testing have to do with large earthquakes? But if you think there is some connection you might want to consider this:


It doesn't seem to match up very well with the earthquake frequency chart.


I don't see any trend in the charts. Recent or otherwise. I see earthquake frequency hovering around the same average.

[edit on 4/7/2010 by Phage]



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


The fact that you think nuke testing doen't have an effect on the earth speaks for itself.

books.google.com... E&hl=en&ei=9r68S6-fIoWdlgfliuWFCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAgQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=WWSSN%20history%20seismograph&f=false

Good reading here on USGS and it's history. Notice the late 60s early 70s upgrades of equipment and locations around the world. We don't have too many more today then back then... not even twice as many stations.

I am going off of the best most accurate data that we have with out nuke testing being done all over our planet.

I don't take pencils on strings from 1900 as a very good example of seismographs.

Around 1970 we had one on the moon... that's when they were good.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by djcubed
 


Have to take issue with you on not having more than there were in the 70's.

I spend much time looking at the IRIS networks and my impression is that in this last decade many more have been added. I may be wrong but I will check it out. You can too.

Here you go. Number of stations added and cumulative



Figures
Added Cumulative
pre 1970 835 835
1970s 273 1108
1980s 1236 2344
1990s 1649 3993
2000s 1501 5494


[edit on 7/4/2010 by PuterMan]



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


Only numbers I could find were in 1983 Source
page 49

1631 in the US

Seems like a lot of coverage to me. All you need is 3 to get info on a quake.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


Thank you.

I still think that when talking about large earthquakes... the addition of stations doesn't matter. We have been able to detect very large quakes anywhere in the world (or on the moon) since the 70s.

However smaller quakes would obviously be easier to detect.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by djcubed
 


I would have to agree with you as regards detection of larger quakes, except perhaps in remote areas.

Just to correct myself I realise I had not adjusted for stations that have ceased before 2010 - not that it makes much difference.




posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   
Check this link and you will see that the number of earthquakes has increased significantly. In the U.S. in the year 2000 there 2,342 notable quakes and in the 2009 there were 4,258 notable quakes and in that almost ten year span it has doubled.


earthquake.usgs.gov...


width="480" height="385"> "http://www.youtube.com/v/CtBXTvtFaCU&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385">



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by djcubed
 

We have been able to detect large quakes anywhere in the world since before 1900. The data for large quakes shows no increase.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Phage... unfortunatly you believe nuke testing doesn't impact the Earth as a whole. That's where I stop listening to your reason. All you are doing is looking at graphs and stating what they read.

That's something a 1st grader can do.

Critical thinking is where you apply all knowledge to a subject and not just read off of a graph.

Such as the fact we tested nukes from the 40s to the 60s... we had some of the largest earthquakes at that time. You don't think they are related?

Analizing recent data, post nuke testing, and what has happened in just 3 months this year has drawn me to my conclusion.

I am fine at agreeing to disagree with a rise of earthquake activity. Although if this year breaks records I will no longer agree to disagree, and it looks like we may be headed that way already.

Only time will tell... Let me know when Cali stops shaking.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by djcubed
 


Originally posted by djcubed
reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread558975

Such as the fact we tested nukes from the 40s to the 60s... we had some of the largest earthquakes at that time. You don't think they are related?



No.
You really should check the links I provide (maybe studying history a bit would help too). I do it for a reason. Here it is again:


Can you find something in the earthquake data which indicates a correspondence between nuclear testing and strong earthquakes? There was no more major earthquake activity in the late fifties through the eighties than there is now.

[edit on 4/7/2010 by Phage]



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chance321
reply to post by moralcompass
 


Beat me to it. I was going to ask the same thing. Depending on what theroy (sp?). It seems to me that if we go with the Earths crust moving with the Pole shift, then yeah, I'd have to say the quakes are just beginning an that this 7.8's nothing compared to what I feel may be coming. But then this is just my take on what may be happening. (shrug)


If the north magnetic pole has been more or less steady in the past, and now it's moving at a rate of 40 miles per year, it makes sense to me that the speed will stand to increase. So yes, I also think these are signs of what may be coming.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 07:55 PM
link   
regarding the Galactic plane and Earths position relative to it:

The Earth and solar system will not pass through the galactic plane on December 21, 2012! Astronomers indicate that the Earth and solar system reside north of the plane of our Milky Way galaxy. It is not known with exact precision how far north we are of the galactic plane, but estimates place us at a few to several dozen light-years.
What's more, the solar system is going northward of the galactic plane as we speak at the rate of 1.5 astronomical units per year. In about 15 million years, we're expected to be farthest north of the galactic plane, perhaps to reach a peak of 230 light-years. After that, we'll start to plunge southward toward the galactic plane. In short, we won't be crossing the galactic plane in 2012 or anytime soon!
As the solar system revolves around the center of the Milky Way galaxy in a period of roughly 230 million years, it does bob up and down through the galactic plane in periods of roughly 35 million years.


If you look at Astronomical evidence you can confirm this form multiple sources. If you look at conspiracy sources, they will distort the facts to suit their agenda.



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join