Magnitude: 6.5 to 7.5

Epicenter: within a 30 mile radius of Anza in Southern California, which is located
~20 miles SSW of Palm Springs
~65 miles NNW of San Diego
~95 miles ESE of Los Angeles

Hypocenter: depth of < 8 miles

Timeframe: between June 16 and Sept 8 2004 (12 weeks)

A bold prediction. Is it a feeling or are you basing it on current seismic activity?

I don't live that far from there and was curious, how did you come up with this prediction? Not to try to flame you or anything, I am legitimately concerned and curious. I have lived in SoCal my whole life and lived here when the big quake in '94 hit. Out of the hundred of earthquakes that I have felt, that is the only one that really scared me. I think that one was between a 6.9-7.1. According to your prediction, it would be that large. I feel that SoCal is overdue for another large quake, so I am a little nervous about your prediction.

Isn't there a scientist that has a system for predicting quakes? Or so the claim is. Isn't there a big one predicted for Socal? Or is it for the SF area?

Indy & Nyarlathotep: my prediction is based mainly on recent seismic activity, but also on a gut feeling. It is not based on a vision or dream (although I did dream of a M7.0 quake that struck in Feb 2001 near Nisqually WA a week before it happened).

I've used seismic predictors in 3 different time ranges:

Short-term: ultra-low frequency infrasonics from the M5.2 quake that occurred yesterday WSW of Coronado CA. This raises the possibility of a larger quake on the Socal coast during the next few days. I've also been monitoring the seismic activity within latitude 33.25-33.75 N and longitude 116.2-116.8 W, and have noted that the annual number of quakes within that area has tripled within the last few years as compared to the average annual number in the preceding decade.

Intermediate-term: Dr. Keilis-Borak's prediction of an earthquake >= 6.5 within a 12,000 square mile region of Southern California between Jan 1 and Sept 5 2004. His system, using computer analysis of minor quakes over several years, has correctly predicted major quakes twice within the last year, although his parameters are relatively wide. By comparison, my prediction is much more narrowly defined by a smaller area (30 mile radius = 2828 square miles), a shorter timeframe (12 weeks), and an upper limit on magnitude (7.5).

Long-term: a seismic activity gap centered near the town of Anza, along the Clark segment of the San Jacinto fault zone (SJFZ). Such seismic gaps tend to get filled eventually. This is one of the few generally accepted methods of earthquake prediction, but is measured in decades or centuries, so I consider it useful only for focusing attention on a specific area.

In my opinion, the SJFZ is currently under much greater stress than the San Andreas fault zone. But the accumulated slippage deficit for the SJFZ near Anza has created a potential for producing a quake of maximum magnitude 7.5, according to the experts. So when and if it occurs in the Anza gap, it will not be 'the big one' (>=M8.0) but is very likely to be a major quake. The amount of damage will depend on it's exact location; minor if it occurs beneath the Santa Rosa mountain range, massive if it hits in the vicinity of San Diego, Palm Springs, or East L.A.

[edit on 16-6-2004 by Nasrudin]

Yeah, I think it is just a matter of time. You have certainly done your homework and if I was a Californian I would be running for the highland. In the meantime, if you live there , I've a suggestion to keep you all occupied....

Learn to swim.


Nutzo

You are clearly using scientific methods to make this prediction-not it came to me in a dream (thank you for that-realy). I realy hope yopu are wrong. I found it interesting that it is supposed to hit so deep down. I was under the impression that the further down a quake is the less violent and damage on the surface. The Northridge quake was 18Kol. deep (18Kol =11.18 miles deep) (1.61Kil=1mile). If this is as powerful and not as deep there could much more massive damage-sure hope you are wrong.

[edit on 16-6-2004 by mrmonsoon]

Isn't it something like the deeper the earthquake is the more the earth absorbs the shaking? I got that from that miniseries 10.5, so I don't know how reliable that is.

I sure hope this doesn't happen, would be terrible for CA to get hit again.

Strange, living in California, in "earthquake country" I never really live in fear of the supposed, "BIG ONE." Been out here since '71 and never have I had a fear for them. But seeing the signs yesterday of the 5.2 (and 3.x aftershock) that hit off Baja, just reminds me that things not under our control can happen and when they do the results could be disasterous. Not like that bogus 10.5 made for TV movie. LOL...

Originally posted by kaoscreator
Isn't it something like the deeper the earthquake is the more the earth absorbs the shaking? I got that from that miniseries 10.5, so I don't know how reliable that is.

I sure hope this doesn't happen, would be terrible for CA to get hit again.

I heard that a 10.5 earthquake on Earth is impossible.

They say that a 10.5 would literally mean the Earths core is exploding.



Nutzo

I said that awhile back.. I am not a predictor but usuall when the quakes start they go in cycles. I said one will hit the Pacific Coast in the next couple of months.

I heard that a 10.5 earthquake on Earth is impossible.
They say that a 10.5 would literally mean the Earths core is exploding.
Nutzo

Actually, this is possible. The nuclear weapons on the earth are capable of ripping the earth's mantel. If a few of them go off in the same place, I have no doubt that they could scramble the core. This isn't an earthquake of course ... but the nuclear stuff could happen ....

Originally posted by nutzobalzo

Originally posted by kaoscreator
I heard that a 10.5 earthquake on Earth is impossible.

They say that a 10.5 would literally mean the Earths core is exploding.



Nutzo

This is true. Seismologists aroud the world say there is no known fault that could produce a 10.5 quake. You have to remember how the Richter scale works. The Richter magnitudes are based on a logarithmic scale (base 10). What this means is that for each whole number you go up on the Richter scale, the amplitude of the ground motion recorded by a seismograph goes up ten times. Using this scale, a magnitude 5 earthquake would result in ten times the level of ground shaking as a magnitude 4 earthquake (and 32 times as much energy would be released). The largest earthquake ever recorded was in Chile on May 22, 1960, with a magnitude (Mw) of 9.5..

There has been a lot of activity there the past couple of days. I bet its coming...

There was also two small ones in TN and MO 3.7