It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by harrytuttle
Consider the source of that statement - an anonymous internet commenter.
That being said, as pointed out in this thread, most of what that commenter said isn't correct.
but new research has shed light on a more dangerous kind of rocking that has occurred there over the past millennium
Originally posted by niceguybob
Seriously, You believe ATS would sensor based on source? Not content, or repeated TOS requirements?
We all sign an agreement when we come on here. Or don't post. I've watched these guys that run AST for years.
The mods are damned if they do,damned if they don't.
QUICK!! TROLL Get him out!
WAIT!!! Maybe NOT a troll...let's see some responces.
They know more then we do about patterns of postings. They could have bounced my hot babe comment too.That was uncalled for. Most of my posts have backup sources, which is what they kindly ask for.
Hot babes ? That was wrong. I should have posted pics.
Originally posted by harrytuttle
reply to post by Disconnected Sociopath
What could possibly be the motive for them to cover up this stuff? Many of those USGS people have family and friends near the fault, so how could they expect to keep it a secret, and more importantly, why?
You could argue for economic reasons, but that would be an insane move, because if the quake happens and we lose all those people/businesses, the entire US economy would suffer immensely.
edit on 9-2-2011 by harrytuttle because: (no reason given)
All land west of the fault on the Pacific Plate is moving slowly to the northwest while all land east of the fault is moving southwest (relatively southeast as measured at the fault) under the influence of plate tectonics. The rate of slippage averages approximately 33 to 37 millimetres (1.3 to 1.5 in) annually across California. The westward component of the motion of the North American Plate creates compressional forces which are expressed as uplift in the Coast Ranges. Likewise, the northwest motion of the Pacific Plate creates significant compressional forces where the North American Plate stands in its way, creating the Transverse Ranges in Southern California, and to a lesser, but still significant, extent the Santa Cruz Mountains, site of the Loma Prieta Earthquake of 1989. Studies of the relative motions of the Pacific and North American plates have shown that only about 75 percent of the motion can be accounted for in the movements of the San Andreas and its various branch faults. The rest of the motion has been found in an area east of the Sierra Nevada mountains called the Walker Lane or Eastern California Shear Zone. The reason for this is not as yet clear, although several hypotheses have been offered and research is ongoing. One hypothesis which gained some currency following the Landers Earthquake in 1992 is that the plate boundary may be shifting eastward, away from the San Andreas to the Walker Lane.
In fact the other week I attended a talk by a vulcanologist who was doing some cutting edge stuff with physics modeling for eruption plumes. I asked a question about terrain and air-intake affecting plume integrity, and she said that the computers (multiple) could barely complete the plume model. They simply used an imaginary point on flat plane to generate the simulation.
Geologists believe that a huge column of upwelling lava, known as a “plume,” lies at a fixed position under the Pacific Plate.
The list of tectonic plates consists proved and proposed tectonic plates of the Earth. Plates which do not longer exist are not listed.
Originally posted by PuterMan
This is my point exactly. The same applies to all this computer modelling - it just does not work properly. Any modelling HAS to be driven by the way the programmer wrote the code. If the programmer got it wrong, the model will put out incorrect results. I don't know a programmer who gets a program right the first time, and thus they go back and tweak the models, and tweak them, and tweak them some more. This is not modelling, this is 'fixing' to make it say what you want it to say. They have a preconceived idea of what the result should be and the programming is written to achieve that result. I have done it myself so I know that happens.
Originally posted by coolottieI live close to the New Madrid and have friend in California and we do believe before 2011 is over there will be a major 7-8 mag quake in both places and probably at the same time. That is why the Navy map shows both areas under water. Whe have been told that map is for a pole shift but it does not say pole shift anywhere on it.
The navy map is on this site and it looks like both southern Calf. and Ar. will be affected.
Originally posted by blamethegreys
reply to post by PuterMan
I am in school for Geology (obviously) but I am skeptical about everything. I don't voice much opposition in class though, because it would would be pissin' in the wind. I did once make a comment to a professor that 'No one has ever seen a subducted plate' and I got an odd look back from her!
Don't you love 'em. They don't like students questioning them cos they think they should have all the answers. They find students like us threatening. I've had a couple of profs enjoy debate, but they are few and far between. As a mature student (nearly finished thank god) they can't fob me off like they do the younger ones. Offer to shout them a coffee after lectures and pick their brains. It can be heaps of fun.
Geology is a young, young science, and those in the field who take the dogma at face value are losing great opportunity to explore our world! From the in-classroom perspective, thermal gradient, plate tectonics and other theories are taught as law, with no acknowledgment to the fact that they are theories. Much the same way Darwinian evolution is presented in biology. I'd love to spend a moment on alternate theories in class, (even if it were to just here the profs debunk!)