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.


Quake Watch 2011

page: 107
<< 104  105  106    108  109  110 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 10:33 AM
reply to post by Trublbrwing

In your theory construction . . . I wonder if this 8 part video series by Tom Bearden

might be of value:

Not my field but sure sounds like plausible stuff, to this layman.

I've long felt that in terms of all that is--we hardly know squat.

posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 10:35 AM
reply to post by PuterMan

Can you share your guesses about your findings at this point?

Even your wild conjectures?

I greatly respect your knowledge and expertise and viewpoints.

It seems to me that there are very few folks who are




posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 01:27 PM
California today

3.9 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA38.81°N -122.82°W 3Km Deep 2011-04-26 17:43:08 UTC2011-04-26 10:43:08 LOCAL NC71566046 3
II 2.1 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA38.84°N -122.80°W 3Km Deep 2011-04-26 15:00:05 UTC2011-04-26 08:00:05 LOCAL NC71565936 1
I 2.3 SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA, CALIFORNIA37.47°N -121.80°W 3Km Deep 2011-04-26 14:47:37 UTC2011-04-26 07:47:37 LOCAL NC71565931 0

posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 01:31 PM
reply to post by ButterCookie

Keep your head up tonight. I'm also in the area and know a couple of things that I can't talk about. I'm sure you're prepared. Just a heads up

posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 03:37 PM

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by muzzy

I find it staggering that these agencies can be so far out. Much as I hate the concept of global anything there is definitely a case here for a truly GLOBAL seismic centre rather than all these ones that say they are but really are not.

I blame the programmers since the data is the same, it must be the programs. Of course if the programmer has allowed the scientists to 'tweak' the parameters then that would explain the mess. Scientists should not be allowed to touch anything.

I still blame the programmers for allowing them to do it.

Yeah same here, I find it frustrating to say the least.
There are of course web pages that try to bring them all together, like oe-files mashup that allows you to click between the 3 Networks, and its automatic so pretty up to date.

I can't do what he has there because you need a dedicated web site to be able to load the info directly, and I have never been able to get a API key off Google for some reason anyway.

Doing it on the cheap ( without a million dollar budget) means using a Blog.

Here is what I have set up, using Google Maps i-frames.
Last 7 Days Global mag 5+ Quakes (Network Composite)
I have combined the 4 main Networks data for Mag 5+ earthquakes for the last 7 days on one map, so you can see where they "estimated" the location of each earthquake. I have included the GSRAS data, I find they are good cross reference to compare to the "big 3"
Heres a few screenshots for those unfamiliar with how it works.

Its actually easier/ faster to zoom in and out on Google Earth, so I have a link below the Map that opens in GE as well.
Heres a screenshot closer in at Sulawesi as an example of how the Networks locations vary so much.

Also in a similar manner to my NZ Quake Blog, a list of the events on the Map, but seperated into each event, like they do on EMSC Latest data contributions page.

It should be noted that these are Mag 5+ only. There are some events on there that just have the result from one Network eg [gfz] or [gsras], its not that the others missed it, its more likely that their Magnitude calculation was below Mag 5 (particularily relates to usgs who constantly downgrade quakes). I just haven't got the time to take the plots down to 4.5, and it would be pretty messy on the map.

I may add a couple of local Networks yet, like Geonet, Indonesia and Chile, depends on how many quakes the 4 main ones miss.

Obviosly it is all done manually, so I only have time to do it once a day.
Now that its all set up it should be easy enough to just add events at the end of each day.

Once you zoom in closer on the i-frame Map you can clearly see clusters, so its not to hard to see individual events with the 4 versions of location, and the odd rogue one

edit on 26-4-2011 by muzzy because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-4-2011 by muzzy because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 04:01 PM

Originally posted by Bachrk
reply to post by ButterCookie

Keep your head up tonight. I'm also in the area and know a couple of things that I can't talk about. I'm sure you're prepared. Just a heads up


You near me? ( Memphis).....send me a message. But yes, Memphis and Arkansas are in for another heavy strom/tornado tonight......

posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 04:31 PM
Oh Boy!!

MAP 5.6 2011/04/26 21:10:26 27.439 -111.598 15.1 GULF OF CALIFORNIA

posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 04:32 PM

posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 05:14 PM


Tuesday, April 26, 2011 at 21:43:45 UTC
Wednesday, April 27, 2011 at 05:43:45 AM at epicenter
Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones

8.988°S, 125.613°E

1.1 km (~0.7 mile) (poorly constrained)


48 km (29 miles) S of DILI, Timor-Leste
257 km (159 miles) ENE of Kupang, Timor, Indonesia
435 km (270 miles) E of Ende, Flores, Indonesia
689 km (428 miles) WNW of DARWIN, Northern Territory, Australia

Location Uncertainty
horizontal +/- 16.3 km (10.1 miles); depth +/- 8 km (5.0 miles)

NST= 48, Nph= 51, Dmin=170.3 km, Rmss=0.91 sec, Gp= 58°,
M-type=regional moment magnitude (Mw), Version=7


Event ID

posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 05:38 PM
Did we really need a new ATS thread for a 5.6???

Maybe when Gulf of Cali has another 7?

edit on 26-4-2011 by MoorfNZ because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 07:39 PM
reply to post by BO XIAN

Can you share your guesses about your findings at this point?

Even your wild conjectures?

You replied to my post about the signals on the New Zealand seismo so I am not quite sure what you are looking for as I closed that one as being of no significance as the sounds were not of seismic origin.

posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 08:08 PM

Mag (ML), Ref, Lat, Long, UTC, Depth, Location
5.006, 3502920, -37.4422, 176.72173, 2011/4/26 04:39:41, 174.3, o/s 33.7km NE of Motoiti Island, Bay of Plenty, NZ
That was 4:39 pm last night NZST
Not Reported as Felt
Once again, as has occured in the past, there was a big gap when there was no activity across the country prior, the last quake before this was a 3.673, 2011/4/25 19:19:52 UTC, Heathcote Valley, a gap of 8 hours, 56 minutes, 47 seconds

edit on 26-4-2011 by muzzy because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 08:54 PM
reply to post by muzzy

There is a faster way of getting the Chile listings muzzy. The site uses frames and if you isolate the frame the format you get is this: (Take the spaces out)

http : //

You can see that this takes you straight to the day you want which is much faster than going to the site and selecting the day.

Now I have discovered this I shall be adding Chile as an automated import in due course.

posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 09:04 PM
Just wanna say thanks folks for keeping us updated information regarding quakes

Appreciate your efforts in doing so...


posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 10:34 PM
reply to post by PuterMan

Hey thats handy, all you need to do is change the date at the end

I'll save that page as a basis to work from.
Might be worth me bringing in those other Networks, there was a 5.0 at 6:19 UTC 139 km al E de San Pedro de Atacama according to dgf , so thats 2 now that the Big 4 have missed in 24hrs, didn't even see them as 4.5 - 5.0 on any of their lists.

posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 02:58 AM
follow up to post by muzzy

This is going to be harder than I thought, that 5.0 EMSC Hokkaido quake 2011/04/25 23:26:33 has been downgraded to a 4.9
What to do?, what to do?, delete it I guess

edit on 27-4-2011 by muzzy because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 04:54 AM
reply to post by muzzy

The problem with any of this type of listing is getting in step with the deletions, and of course additions. Let's face it we know things can change as much as a month or more from the date. I have to be honest and say that the fact of the matter is that in reality no one will care if one is on there or not!

I am sure that like me an error in the figures would grieve you. I like the data to be accurate but not only is there the built in inaccuracy from the agencies and their different interpretations but also the fact that we are not paid to do this! There is only so much time one can put into these things. As well as this we live in an age of 'instant', by which I mean that people will look at a new set of data at the instant they see it and very few if any will check it for accuracy or go back to it again.

I know for a fact that my 2010 Earthquake Analysis is now inaccurate as there have been upgrades, downgrades and additions to the data since it was produced. The changes are very minor and do not affect the overall picture, nonetheless I resent the fact that those inaccuracies are now there. The question is, is it worth me going back and spending hours re-doing all the tables and graphs for the sake of a dozen or so earthquakes that have been added or changed? If my report was being widely quoted around the internet then it probably would be worth doing, or if I was an earthquake information agency acting as a global source then it would be essential, but for the very small number of people that will see my report then it is probably not worth the effort. As with your 7 day reports you are running a rolling picture Monday to Monday, etc if you are doing them daily, so if there is a change then if it was the first Monday it will be dropped and if later it will get into the Tuesday to Tuesday version.

I think that is the best we can do, and provided it is clear that this is the case I see no problem with that.

What do others think?

posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 05:23 AM
reply to post by muzzy

This is why I am going through the slow process of assembling automated data collection for everywhere in the world!

Actually here is a question for everyone. As the number of sources grows it gets more and more difficult to 'match' earthquake up as muzzy is finding. If you have information about one quake from 4 different sources which one is the right one? How do you know that a quake is the same or is a new one not spotted by others - a double bump?

I have a fairly complex processing section that compares all the parameters and based on certain upper and lower tolerances decides if a quake is the same, is new or falls in an area that requires me to look at it and make a decision. As with space exploration, computers are cr*p at looking at data and making abstruse decisions on the similarity of galaxies or earthquakes. Humans are much better equipped to do that. We can rest assured that there are some thing sfor which the human will never be replaced!

An example of the data page

I digress. My question is, should listings contain all the variable versions or extract from one master list as I currently have it. I am beginning to favour multiple version listings (back to the drawing board?) where all versions are shown.along side each other but there is a master version which comes at the top of the list. I am not even sure if that is easy since as you can see on the image two quakes that are (obviously?) the same have different times and well as latitude, longitude and depth.

Maybe they should just all be listed in chronological order?

posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 10:56 AM
reply to post by PuterMan


I understand. I think. LOL.

As near as I can recall . . .

I was likely hoping for a wider conjecture . . . considering the various quake signals from all over but particularly in the Pacific and North American regions.

Particularly about any unusual patterns vs usual stuff etc.

I have an assumption that you know more than you realize you know.

That is, that because of your massive amount of study . . . you are processing nuances and details on an unconscious level that you rarely or not very fully consciously think about.

I have an assumption that getting you to make some wild conjectures

MIGHT just tap into that wealth of unconscious nuance and detail processing that your massive mind MUST be doing all the time, even or particularly in "idle" mode.

I'm just in my psychologist conjecture mode.

posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 02:48 PM
reply to post by PuterMan

Yeah you are probably right.
I'm noticing on both the NZ Quakes and the World Major Blogs that the majority of hits are to the 7 days pages, not so much the individual days or years, although there are the odd ones like for example someone will go have a look at 03.10.2009 for some reason on the NZ one.

Looks like folks just want a bit of an overview.
For a while I did go back and revise the NZ days, a lot of work especially finding the name locations, when there are 50 a day it takes a lot of time. Then when I started doign the graphs they started to all look the same, and I thought well that defeats the purpose, of seeing trends. So I gave that away and just kept to Preliminary Data only.
Every once and a while, if there is a Mag 5 I'll do a complete download of the year so far to get some numbers, and thats when I notice any changes. Picked up the one where the 5.7 in the Waikato earlier in the year had been revised to Mag. 6.3 by doing that.

I doubt I'll go beyond doing 7 Days globally, when I did the initial 8-30,31-60, 61-90 etc thing it was along weekend and the weather was terrible, so I had time on my hands.

The Mag 5's I can handle, seeing as there are usually less than 10 per day.

edit on 27-4-2011 by muzzy because: spelling

I'm more into the graphics side of it anyway, I've come a long way since 2006 when I used to draw dots on a blank map roughly where the quake was, but now with all the programmes I've found, accuracy has become more impotant (to me). Even doing the graphs, if I'm even 1 pixel out matching them day to day I'll redo it again
. Blame Snagit for that

edit on 27-4-2011 by muzzy because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 104  105  106    108  109  110 >>

log in