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.
I'm sorry angelwrangler, but you are incorrect. "Little quakes are good" is a lie that they led us to believe for way too many years.
The magnitude is very easy to calculate. The 2-7-1812 quake was more powerful than the 1964 Alaskan quake, the 2004 Indonesian quake, and the 1960 Chilean quake in every single barometer. You don't need to explain anything to me about New Madrid. I have been studying it for years. I spent 10 years working in the fault zone. I had not studied it for a long time, but with all the recent activity I have been going over my research data from years back recently.
With a magnitude of between 9.1 and 9.3, it is the third largest earthquake ever recorded on a seismograph
And you need to grasp that the info the USGS and all those colleges and such sources give about New Madrid is pure fantasy and fiction. They have been lying to the public about it for years.
The reality is that the 1960 Valdivia quake was like a Sunday park picnic compared to the New Madrid quakes. And the 1811-12 ones were smaller than previous ones in the region. The 1450 A.D. cluster was stronger and the 900 A.D. cluster was much stronger. The last big quakes were actually small by the fault's standards.
It amazes me how people can actually think that a 7 or 8 quake could actually reverse the Mississippi River and do all the other things that happened. The 1960 Chilean quake was 1/3 as damaging at the epicenter. The 1964 Alaskan quake released 1/3 the energy.
Of course, puterman will come in here with all sorts of nonsense and fake "government data", "proving" that is all wrong.