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: 71
<< 68  69  70    72  73  74 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 09:20 AM
reply to post by Robin Marks

Puterman disagrees with me because he thinks the distances involved are too great.

No Robin. I did not disagree with you, the document you provided to support your case disagreed with you.

By the way geiger counters are sold out in the States!

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 10:34 AM
reply to post by PuterMan
[mo Do you guys check out the live internet seismic server? It has certain areas with monitors the keep tabs on.

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 11:01 AM
Hello everyone.

I had to register here too now! Been following this forum for some time now.

Just a moment ago my mom called me and said there was an earthquake where my parents live.
And we happen to live in Finland. I live in Helsinki and my mom lives nearby in Jarvenpaa. We have NEVER
as far as I can recall had an earthquake here. It was something like 1.6 richter. Strange days!
edit on 19-3-2011 by jouzaboz because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 11:05 AM
reply to post by Agarta

Hi Agarta. I meant to reply to this earlier.

From your reference:

Below is a graph showing how the number of all magnitude earthquakes has grown over recent years.

Now whilst I grant that the author does say that this graph would expect to show an increase as there are more stations, one has to ask if that is the case why bother to display the graph at all as it is statistically completely useless?

There is another site which does the same and uses these silly graphs. Rather than type it all out again I will direct you here to "Does the number of Earthquakes matter?"

I note also that he gives an attribution for the graph of Graph plot for "all magnitude" earthquakes reproduced from DL Research paper

This web site is no different from his own and is not the "research" site it is made out to be. In fact the site owner even makes a request for anyone to give him more sources of data on the web page! (Muzzy - you will have a barrel of laughs at this crowd.)

So back to the report.

You need to look at Muzzy's Worldwide Quake Mapping Project

That is a project that is based on good research and many data sources. In particular take a look at the graph for 1910 to 2011 which definitely does not back up this sites assertions.

In addition,

and they say:

When there are multiple earthquakes (over 7.0) occuring within 5 days of each other in the same geographic area, only one has been counted. This may result in slightly different (lower) numbers for earthquakes than might otherwise be listed, although consistancy in this approach makes historical comparisons more reliable, as large after-shocks were not always recorded (in addition to the "main" quake) in previous decades.

Not sure what to make of that one! The Moro gulf would look at bit sad! This is statistical nonsense again. There are very good reasons why historical quakes are not so well recorded. You only have to look at New Madrid and the argy bargy over earthquake sizes. In addition as Muzzy would i have no doubt confirm, many of the older catalogues are only in intensity, and there is really little effective translation from intensity to magnitude. Most of it is guesswork.

For the purposes of statistical recording below, only those earthquakes registering ABOVE 6.9 (ie a level of 7.0 or above) are now counted below. Major earthquakes, rather than the more regular and frequent lower intensity earthquakes, are judged to have a greater impact on geographic reach and damage, and are more likely to be accurately recorded over a longer period of history.

Well this sounds reasonable doesn't it? No, actually. I will come to that is a minute.

For example, between 1986 and 1996 (incl), a period of 11 years, there were "just" 15 earthquakes listed by USGS of magnitude 7.0 or greater.

I find this statement very odd.

Magnitude 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
8.0 to 9.9 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 1 0
7.0 to 7.9 18 16 13 12 11 18 14 16 11 18
1990s from USGS

I count 108 for 1990 to 1996 so where is the figure coming from? Is he suggesting that the missing 93+ are all aftershocks that he is not counting?

Sorry, but the dates for earthquakes listed here are in reverse order to accepted international usage (ie they are in US format which is YYYY-MM-DD).

:shk: Not only is that not US format, it is Asian format, it is also the accepted way of displaying dates for the very good reason that it is sortable. To apologise for that makes me suspect that the author really does not have much of a clue.

So finally why did his statement not seem reasonable?

He is making an assumption that mag 7+ will be recorded all over the world - at their correct magnitudes.

The marked line is Graffenberg in Germany where the earthquake was recorded as a 7.6. So what was this quake?

ot = 05:46:23.70 +/- 2.96 NEAR EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
lat = 38.322 +/- 6.1
lon = 142.369 +/- 8.9 MAGNITUDE 7.9 (GS)
dep = 24.4 +/- 2.6

Oh a 7.9 - um no look at the time.

It was this:
Magnitude 9.0

* Friday, March 11, 2011 at 05:46:23 UTC
* Friday, March 11, 2011 at 02:46:23 PM at epicenter

Don't forget that this is modern equipment and systems. What chance that data in the 1950+ years makes any sense?

If you are scratching your head don't worry, you are not the only one.

Edit to add: By the way the tone throughout suggests knowledge of the subject, but I doubt it is any greater then mine seeing as they are in the same line of work as me!!

edit on 19/3/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 11:07 AM
reply to post by jouzaboz

Last one on the list is a 1.6

Click on Helsinki

It was this one - a 2.8

2011 03 19 11:21:52.2 60.598 25.275 2.8LHEL

edit on 19/3/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 11:09 AM

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by jouzaboz

Last one on the list is a 1.6

Thanks for clearing that up! Weird stuff anyway, for us! Exciting to say the least.

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 11:12 AM
reply to post by jouzaboz

I edited while you replied.

It was a 2.8 but it was at 11:21

Looks like your mum may have taken a little while telling you about it!!!

Edit to say 13:21 your time
edit on 19/3/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 11:37 AM
reply to post by PuterMan

Please share your personal opinion on remote triggering. I mean in general terms.

I want to talk about the Japanese earthquakes. Some of the data has been assessed and this was indeed a massive, energetic movement. I'll have to check the Banda Aceh quake to find out if it's comparable, but the March 11th quake had a duration of 5 minutes. In earthquake time, that's forever. And the extent of it was over hundreds of kilometers. Adding to this paragraph, I checked the 2004 quake and the duration was between 8-10 minutes. And the rupture was 1300 km. Wow, that blows my mind. And I knew it was big because I have watched a documentary which followed geologists as they measure the changes. So, the Japanese quake would still be smaller to some degree. Or not. You have to remember, both had foreshocks and lots of aftershocks. You would have to do a complete analysis of the entire movement over time. I think when we focus only on the mainshock, we miss the real process.

Let's not forget that the Japanese were prepared. They took the threat seriously. Large sea-walls were constructed to keep a tsunami from reaching the cities. But they did not foresee such a large event. Should they have expected the worst scenario? Yes, I think they should have. But remember they started preparing and planning for a large tsunami back as early as 1933. We must also realized that geology and siesmology are relatively new sciences. Plate tectonics was a just a hypothesis once called continental drift back in the 1960's. Lots' has changed since then. Many of the magnitues on earthquakes throughout recorded history are best guesses. There was no equipment set up to determine exact measurement. Today we can instantly see satellite images of before and after to analysis. GPS can show the grand scale of the movement.

I think the Japanese prepared for a devasting earthquake. Their culture has adapted to life in a danerous place. It's just that they failed to adapt quickly enough when evidence was starting to show they weren't prepared enough. Their predictions were conservative. They are a conservative nation.

The size of earthquakes does not correlate with the death and destruction of infrastructure. Comparing Haiti, Banda Aceh, and Japan, will give you all the lessons you need to learn. It's all about prepardedness. I'm omitting the nuclear crisis, that is one big ugly can of worms.

(after the end of the cold war, and when chernobyl faded from our memories, everyone seemed to forget about the dangers of nukes. i didn't. never. i stopped talking about the issue because no one cared and they didn't want to hear what i had to say. at times, i confess i forgot too. but the issue would pop back into the front of my mind whenever a news item happened to mention it. it was rare, the media forgot about the nukes, where are we going to store all the spent rods for a zillion years)

Sorry, that was a convulsion. My point is that many countries are not prepared. They talk about prepardeness. But that's not the same thing as being prepared and making a conscious effort. The United States and Canada have a large quake waiting off their coasts. Are they prepared? Not a chance. There is no comparison to be made. About the only real planning has going into the newest buildings. The skyscrappers will most likely endure. Well, that depends on liquidification factors. I watched a documentary on Seattle's emergency plan. I haven't been able to research the subject anymore. It's too depressing. After I heard that a major overpass was in no way ready for any large event, I understood the scale of destruction and had to stop investigating because I was overwhelmed. If a tsunami hits Seattle, heaven help them.

And the other cities in the region. A member named Westcoast has often written on this thread. She is documenting her existence and feelings on living in Washington State. You should read her thread. She is trying to prepare. I wish everyone around her was so keen to take the threat seriously. But too many people think, "It won't happen to me!"

When asked about the size of the mainshock, Japanese researchers said the quake was beyond all expectations. This coming from the most prepared people on the face of the earth.

Every penny you pinch when planning, costs millions pennies after the fact to rebuild.
But worse still, every penny saved, every penny the government refuses to pay, will cost lives, "at the end of the day".

That's the bottom line.

edit on 19-3-2011 by Robin Marks because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 12:09 PM
reply to post by Robin Marks

Please share your personal opinion on remote triggering. I mean in general terms.

I thought I already did.

When asked about the size of the mainshock, Japanese researchers said the quake was beyond all expectations. This coming from the most prepared people on the face of the earth.

Like I said to you before - Men in white coats guessing.

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 12:34 PM
reply to post by PuterMan

I understand completely. Have you checked on the chubby signatures on WHAR? I've been watching for them and they seem to show up only during the active periods. There were two of them sandwiched between two quakes yesterday.

They're probably nothing. Do you remember when Shirakawa thought he found fluid movement at Yellowstone? I'm getting the same vibe as I had then. I think I just want to rule them out. So I can forget about them.

And now for something completely different.
Some wild speculation. I don't have a white lab coat so I'll have to use my tinfoil hat.

I think the Florida mystery movement was a methane gas release in the Ocean. If there was a disturbance on the ocean floor which allow methane to the surface. The gas when it burst through the water would have created a shockwave. If it was an earthquake out on the seafloor, then the siesmograms would have picked it up. They didn't. Which means it could be on the surface. The waves from the release would be limited because when it hit the shoreline, the sand would have absorbed much of the shock, along with it being so shallow.

There is some other speculative reasons to think about a methane release. The Bermuda Triangle has been thought to have something to do with methane. Although it's been relatively quiet for a long time. I would be interesting to go back over the disappearances and see if there is a correlation with major earthquakes around the recorded weirdness. Just spitballing. Pay no mind.

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 01:02 PM
Just signed up to post this.

I sometimes look at the reading of the Sri Lankan seismograph on GEE just to pass the time. It usually looks like this:

But, now (shot taken about 15 mins back from the time of post), it's looking like this:

Please advice.

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 01:04 PM
reply to post by Robin Marks

Have you checked on the chubby signatures on WHAR?

I think you mean WLAR? WLAR.AG.00.HHZ.2011.078

The main thing is that they are absolutely regular and always start at about the same time. I have yet to try and work out what they are but they are not seismic.

Edit: Sorry that should start in the same time band.

edit on 19/3/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 01:11 PM
reply to post by PuterMan

No, I mean WHAR. Note that the two signals I'm looking at are around the same time as the two obvious quakes.

1. 20:03 UTC
2. 20:11 UTC

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 01:46 PM
reply to post by Robin Marks

Ah 21:03 and 21:11 Pass I will have a listen.

Mm, not these then - since I had made this.

Add: Note to say the EXE is just images in a slide show. Nothing nasty unless you don't like seismograms!!

edit on 19/3/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)

Here - zip version in case your computer won't let you download exe files.

edit on 19/3/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 02:43 PM
MAP 5.3 2011/03/19 18:43:03 -10.206 -13.205 10.0 ASCENSION ISLAND REGION
MAP 5.2 2011/03/19 16:11:59 -6.092 149.423 58.1 NEW BRITAIN REGION, PAPUA NEW GUINEA
MAP 5.3 2011/03/19 12:11:17 -19.475 167.955 42.9 VANUATU REGION
MAP 6.1 2011/03/19 09:56:51 36.810 140.375 24.9 NEAR THE EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
MAP 5.4 2011/03/19 08:35:00 -22.075 -68.441 101.3 ANTOFAGASTA, CHILE


posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 03:12 PM
I hust added a Mag 6 and above only map to my Japan page ............. just wanted to see

Japan 9.0 page (still called Japan 8.9 page, if I change it now old links won't work)

Another link on Google Maps
edit on 19-3-2011 by muzzy because: (no reason given)

I'm working on a time lapse/colour coding to see where this monster is heading, its a hard job, as I don't want to get people mixed up with the magnitude colours on the other maps.
edit on 19-3-2011 by muzzy because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 03:20 PM
Could`nt help but notice a tropical storm right below where the supermoon is and 3 earthquakes spreadout on the same side of the earth that the moons above weird. 4.6 1810 hrs japan 5.2 1843hrs atlantic,african coast 3.5 1903hrs turkey 4.9 2008 hrs ethiopia 2.3 2010 hrs greece(usual) 4.3 2014hrs russia NE 3.0 2050 hrs virgin islands
Tropical depression moving to madigascar 111km

Moon at 1950 hours

All in my mind
moon at 2148 hrs

Very slight pattern,I still think a earthquake will more likely occur as the moon pulls away early morning or in the next 48 hrs.For now I await and observe ,as we do with concern and hope that i am mistaken,in which case throw rocks at me... !
edit on 19-3-2011 by gringoboy because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 03:43 PM
MAP 5.0 2011/03/19 20:08:11 6.680 38.499 14.9 ETHIOPIA


posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 04:11 PM
reply to post by Givenmay

Very interesting. It seems the rift in Africa is awake. Second quake there. The moon is over Africa right now.
I noticed on some other sites they are focusing on the west coast. This is due to Jim Berkland's observations.

I'm not even sure if all this activity is due to the moon. There is no way to factor out the earthquake in Japan.
But regardless of actually causes, the activity is not the norm. Sure there's quakes all over the world all the time. But here you can see definate patterns. I've already noted the North American region and the India Plate, I would have pointed out the rift activity, but there was only one quake there previously. Add in the quake in the Atlantic, and it seems that the rift faults are represented as well.

Boy am I glad Arkansas isn't really reacting anymore.

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 04:28 PM
reply to post by Robin Marks

Those fuzzy things on WHAR Robin. Sorry for the delay.

Have a listen for yourself. No idea. Truck/Car/Alien Spacecraft?

Put the quake in that lot as well as it is rather a cute one.

Forgot the link

edit on 19/3/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)

new topics

<< 68  69  70    72  73  74 >>

log in