It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by PuterMan
Originally posted by Red Cloak
There were no measuring devices in 1811-12. All charts and graphs he posted make claims to know how much energy was released and how big those quakes were - in other words imaginary and fake data that is made up out of thin air. Or are you disputing that there were no measuring devices for earthquakes in 1811-12. Please provide proof that there were measuring devices for earthquakes in 1811-12.
You could do some research before you make statements as above.
The first reported use of any measurement of earthquake intensity has been attributed to the Italian Schiantarelli, who recorded the intensity of the 1783 earthquake that occurred in Calabrian, Italy.
Source
In AD 132, Zhang Heng of China's Han dynasty invented the first seismoscope (by the definition above), which was called Houfeng Didong Yi (literally, "instrument for measuring the seasonal winds and the movements of the Earth"). The description we have, from the History of the Later Han Dynasty, says that it was a large bronze vessel, about 2 meters in diameter; at eight points around the top were dragon's heads holding bronze balls. When there was an earthquake, one of the mouths would open and drop its ball into a bronze toad at the base, making a sound and supposedly showing the direction of the earthquake. On at least one occasion, probably at the time of a large earthquake in Gansu in 143 CE, the seismoscope indicated an earthquake even though one was not felt. The available text says that inside the vessel was a central column that could move along eight tracks; this is thought to refer to a pendulum, though it is not known exactly how this was linked to a mechanism that would open only one dragon's mouth. The first ever earthquake recorded by this seismograph was supposedly somewhere in the east. Days later, a rider from the east reported this earthquake.
Source
If you really consider that ad hominem attacks against me are going to phase me then I am afraid you are wrong. I always present data and opinions as I find them and do not twist the data or claim that it is something it is not.
Unlike some I do not take an unhealthy delight in attempting to scare people but rather present the facts and allow them to make up their own mind.
I am sure that most people with a degree of common sense are able to differentiate between the two approaches.
edit on 21/2/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Red Cloak
If you want to go that route, I suppose that I could say there were no reporters on-site that were accredited journalists and so state that the earthquakes did not even occur. All we have is hearsay from unqualified witnesses.
There you go, the New Madrid EQ's of 1811 did not happen.
There were no Richter Scales in 1811-12. There were no devices that could record the energy released as the charts you have earlier posted indicated. There were never any measurements of the magnitude of the 1811-12 New Madrid quakes.
please provide the link and make it a link that is from an official source, like USGS
Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Red Cloak
If you want to go that route, I suppose that I could say there were no reporters on-site that were accredited journalists and so state that the earthquakes did not even occur. All we have is hearsay from unqualified witnesses.
There you go, the New Madrid EQ's of 1811 did not happen.
Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by Red Cloak
please provide the link and make it a link that is from an official source, like USGS
Now hold on a minute. You slag me off for quoting USGS and then you tell someone else to quote them as proof?
I don't think I can reconcile that sort of comment to reality.
I am sorry, I guess that that post flew right over your head.
I have been sternly told to strictly stick to nothing but facts in this thread, so it is only fair that every other poster be made to do the same. Including you. Please provide the documented proof that the river did not run backwards.
Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by Red Cloak
There were no Richter Scales in 1811-12. There were no devices that could record the energy released as the charts you have earlier posted indicated. There were never any measurements of the magnitude of the 1811-12 New Madrid quakes.
Actually I don't think anyone has ever stated that there were. The magnitudes for the 1811/1812 quakes were derived from damage and local reports.
Since you obviously do not understand the science I should just point out that the calculation for energy released is based on the estimate of the Richter scale and this calculation can be carried out at any time. It is not a measurement, it is a calculation.
edit on 21/2/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Red Cloak
I am sorry, I guess that that post flew right over your head.
I have been sternly told to strictly stick to nothing but facts in this thread, so it is only fair that every other poster be made to do the same. Including you. Please provide the documented proof that the river did not run backwards.
I do not doubt that the Mississippi River ran backwards. I was simply trying to illustrate to you the folly of what you are doing with the 1811/Richter Scale argument.
Most of us are keenly aware that the Richter Scale was developed long after 1811. Anyone using a Richter Scale measurement when speaking of the 1811 NMEQ is using it as an approximation, arrived at by actual damage done by the EQ.
Your argument is akin to saying that nothing could have been over a foot long before the ruler was invented.
Thanks. I hope that clears things up.
Not true. I am saying that you keep implying that the magnitudes they give are real. They are NOT real. They are just imaginary numbers of whatever they feel like putting. The quakes were never measured in anyway.
Many people are coming to these threads and don't seem to realize that. When you and some others imply that those magnitudes are real, when they are not, then it confuses those that don't know better.
Someone claims the quakes did not happen, then USGS can be used to prove they did. However, they cannot be used to claim the magnitude was measured, because it was not.
I am only dealing with exact facts. Please kindly do so in turn. It's a very small thing I am asking of you.
Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by Red Cloak
Not true. I am saying that you keep implying that the magnitudes they give are real. They are NOT real. They are just imaginary numbers of whatever they feel like putting. The quakes were never measured in anyway.
Many people are coming to these threads and don't seem to realize that. When you and some others imply that those magnitudes are real, when they are not, then it confuses those that don't know better.
Not so. I have only stated that these figures are given, in this instance by Wikipedia, and for the purposes of the calculations I took the mid point of the estimates given, and I stated that this was how I had arrived at the figure. At no time have implied that the magnitudes were real measured values.
Someone claims the quakes did not happen, then USGS can be used to prove they did. However, they cannot be used to claim the magnitude was measured, because it was not.
I think that most people understand sarcasm when they see it. As stated no one has ever stated that they were measured.
I am only dealing with exact facts. Please kindly do so in turn. It's a very small thing I am asking of you.
So let us deal in facts - you say that the earthquakes in 1811/1812 were much larger than they are estimated to be by geologists from the USGS and various Universities around the area. Indeed at some point you have stated them to be larger than the Great Alaskan Earthquake (which was measured). So if I cannot use what is generally accepted as the case by most people to be the range of magnitudes by the same token you cannot make any claims in this area either as your claims are also not facts.
Just wanted to let you know after trying several insurance agencies last week we were finally able to get some through the Farris agency in Conway. It is with a company named auto something. They had a better rate with a 5% deductible. You have to redo all your home owners with them but if something major happens here it may be well worth it......Good luck with your search.
Originally posted by SusanFrey
reply to post by westcoast
Yes I called my insurance agent. I was told there was a moratorium and that they were not writing any and she is checking to see if she can get coverage elsewhere with another company. Was also told that a mag lower that 4.8 could or, is not suppose to be able to do any structural damage.
We are north of Jacksonville AFB and yes there are many more helicoptors and low flying military planes since last summer than the previous 3 years that we have been here.edit on 21-2-2011 by SusanFrey because: Answered a question and then added to it.
Fact = the quakes were never measured in any way
Apparently you are. I guess I will leave this right there, your quote should be self explanatory for most people. As in.... "The damage done can only happen if the quake is over 9." No one else is allowed to estimate it, but you can??? Right. U2U me if you want to drag it out. I don't.
This "calculation" of the power of the quakes done by damage is the folly and the nonsense. The damage done can only happen if the quake is over 9. Perhaps you should first grasp that and then get back to me.