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.

 

Earthquake Swarm in Arkansas Intensifies. Memphis, Tennessee could be epicenter for the next big one

page: 66
287
<< 63  64  65    67  68  69 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   

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)


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.

So from now on, I request that no one here makes claims that there were, like some have previously done. Since it is an established fact that no measurements of the 1800s New Madrid quakes took place.

Otherwise, false information is being posted here and we can't tolerate that. If false info continues to be posted here then it will be reported from now on.

Thanks.


edit on 21-2-2011 by Red Cloak because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Good work there SunflowerStar
... and you too Puter



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 08:10 AM
link   
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.



What's that? the Mississippi River ran backwards?
Where are the photos? Photos or it didn't happen.

edit on 21-2-2011 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 08:16 AM
link   

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.



Then how do you explain all of the evidence in the geologic record and all of the geologists that study it? I am only interested in dealing with the facts here. puterman claims the same. Fine then. Let's start actually posting them, instead of manipulated and misleading data.

I am asking you to do so as well. And claiming that the quakes did not happen, when they are in the geologic record is certainly not posting factual information. So the next time you make such a post, please provide the link and make it a link that is from an official source, like USGS that the quakes did not happen.

Thanks.

The geologic record shows the quakes happened. However, any chart or graph that claims the quakes were a certain magnitude, released a certain amount of energy, or ranks the quakes strength against other quakes is made up and imaginary. Because the quakes were never actually measured. So all that "data" is fake.

Some posters here post things like that and claim they are "facts" and real, when they of course are total fiction. Unfortunately, some other members that are less knowledgeable about earthquakes then take this as fact because certain members present it that way. "Oh a link, a chart, a graph and a guy posting with an attitude of how much of an expert they are - it must be true then".............

Let's stop that and stick to the actual truth. I don't want some people getting confused. So let's just stick to the information that is reasonable and that isn't obviously fake. That isn't too much to ask.
edit on 21-2-2011 by Red Cloak because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 08:17 AM
link   
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)



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 08:18 AM
link   
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.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by maybee
 


The local news in Memphis has been reporting on the quakes, just not in depth. But throughout the weekend I have seen numerous reports from 2 news stations (channels 3 and 5) with the maps of Arkansas and the epicenters layed out, so yes they are monitoring the quakes, but also downplaying that there is anything to worry about. That really bothers me, because these swarms are so numerous, and instead of telling their viewers this is no big deal, they should be telling viewers that they can't forecast quakes and they should always have an emergency plan in place and be prepared regardless. To me they are being irresponsible.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Red Cloak
 
I am not ignoring it.

That little guy down below my post rolling his eyes denotes sarcasm.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 08:20 AM
link   
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.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 08:23 AM
link   

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.


Then how do you explain all of the evidence in the geologic record and all of the geologists that study it? I am only interested in dealing with the facts here. puterman claims the same. Fine then. Let's start actually posting them, instead of manipulated and misleading data.

I am asking you to do so as well. And claiming that the quakes did not happen, when they are in the geologic record is certainly not posting factual information. So the next time you make such a post, please provide the link and make it a link that is from an official source, like USGS that the quakes did not happen.

Thanks.

The geologic record shows the quakes happened. However, any chart or graph that claims the quakes were a certain magnitude, released a certain amount of energy, or ranks the quakes strength against other quakes is made up and imaginary. Because the quakes were never actually measured. So all that "data" is fake.

Some posters here post things like that and claim they are "facts" and real, when they of course are total fiction. Unfortunately, some other members that are less knowledgeable about earthquakes then take this as fact because certain members present it that way. "Oh a link, a chart, a graph and a guy posting with an attitude of how much of an expert they are - it must be true then".............

Let's stop that and stick to the actual truth. I don't want some people getting confused. So let's just stick to the information that is reasonable and that isn't obviously fake. That isn't too much to ask.

The river ran backwards because it is in the geologic record. It created a new island. Personally, I find it rather insulting when known geologic facts are being disputed here, but fake and imaginary charts are being held as gospel.

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.

Thanks.

edit on 21-2-2011 by Red Cloak because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 08:27 AM
link   

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.


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 any way.

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.

Thanks and keep contributing to the thread.
edit on 21-2-2011 by Red Cloak because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Red Cloak
 



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 am sorry, I guess that that post flew right over your head.

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.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   

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)


You keep implying that someone's personal guess, pulled out of thin air and totally made up is a "calculation". No it is not a "calculation". It's science fiction and it''s total BS. And it has no place, nor business being posted here. So kindly don't post such data in the future without explaining that it is just nothing but some number they pulled out of the air.

You are making people that read the thread that don't know any better believe this nonsense is actual "Fact".

1. You post a link

2. That link shows a chart and a graph

3. That then says fancy things like "energy released" and "calculation".

4. You then say things like "I only deal with FACTS".

= someone reading the thread that does not know better (that's it not actually real at all) actually thinks it is accurate and true. That is giving out misleading implications to some people that are reading the thread.

If you actually care about "facts" then you will stop doing stuff like that. I am kindly asking you to have that courtesy here.

Thank you for all your good contributions to these threads and keep up what you are doing. But please just from now on properly explain to those that might not actually know, that none of the quakes were measured and any source that claims they were, or that gives "calculations" is basically just nonsense.

You keep claiming you are all about facts and everything else like that. So then please stop using data that is totally invalid and non-pertinent and completely useless to form arguments and to shape the views of others reading the thread.

Again, thanks for all the good data you are posting, especially like the charts showing the recent quake activity. It's nice to have it right in the thread, without having to constantly look it up,


edit on 21-2-2011 by Red Cloak because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Red Cloak
 



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 am sorry, I guess that that post flew right over your head.

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.



Fact = the quakes happened

Fact = the river ran backwards

Fact = the quakes were never measured in any way

Fact = any "calculation" claiming otherwise is just someone's personal imagination

You are arguing with facts.

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.

Those "calculations" are complete BS and nonsense and have no place being put in this thread. Let's please stick to true information. I have asked nicely now several times.

Thank you kind sir or madam, now back to the issue we are debating here. The quakes, and that they were NOT measured and everything else in the thread that is actually pertinent info.
edit on 21-2-2011 by Red Cloak because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by justsaying
 


Yes, they are down playing it big time, have been since it started. The local news last night said that there had been more quakes in Greenbrier over the weekend and that was all they said about it.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   
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.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   
I can tell you that I studied the New Madrid Quake of the 1800's about three years ago. I read news paper articles of witness accounts about what transpired. The earthquake was horrendous! One account was from a fella riding his horse in southern Missouri. He said that his horse stopped and would not move. Then it started to lay down while he was on its back. He thought the horse was dying. However, about a minute later the full quake was noticed by the rider. He said the ground was waving like the ocean. The same accounts say that church bells rang in Boston because of the quake!

This fault is not like the typical faults. It is vertical and not horizontal concerning the orientation to the core of the earth. I read on the first page of this thread of a guy who has found big plots of land in Arkansas that is mainly sand. The same accounts from the newspapers in the 1800's said that sand geysers blew sand up to 30 meters/90 feet into the air for days. My guess is, the guy that posted on this discovery found one of the spots where one of these geysers was originally. Actually, there are cabins that are a part of Arkansas's tourist attractions where they are standing at about 50 degrees off level to show the effect of the land shifting after the quake.

My question is, how are you preparing for a quake of this magnitude? I am certain that all of the big cities in Tennessee will be demolished. Huntsville, Muscle Shoals and Birmingham Alabama will probably be decimated as well. This is because all of the buildings in these areas are pure brick and mortar. The fall out from a quake of the magnitude of the 1800's will absolutely throw the Southeast and parts of the Mid-West back into the early 1900's. Furthermore, I have no idea how you can prepare for something like this. I guess, just pray that the Lord will protect you because something like this I would consider an act of God! Anyway, keep up the good work on this thread. Watch, prepare and pray!



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   

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.



There are NUMEROUS sources that show they were larger than the Alaska quake. Your OPINION is that you choose to ignore that and instead you pull up charts of ESTIMATES and "calculations".

You also never said they were estimates when you were posting them to "prove" the size of the quakes. Now, one last time, kindly please don't do that anymore. I am asking nicely.

Now, if you are going to purposely claim here that only fake and made up estimates can be used here then most certainly I am taking issue with it and most certainly will you have to provide extensive scientific reasoning and knowledge of the subject to as you say "prove" that these estimates are true and also to disprove all of the data which clearly shows that they were larger than the 1964 Alaskan quake.

Since you so far have refused to do either, until you do so I will take it for granted that you refuse to do so and that you can't. And I will continue to politely remind you and others here in the thread that you can't back up your claims that you keep making here, although you do like to frame it as though you are the world's leading expert.

So, please go ahead and start explaining to everyone here how the quakes were not bigger than the 1964 Alaskan quake, using ACTUAL fact and data, and not a chart or graph that is simply made up.

Your claim is that these calculations are accurate "based on the damage the quakes caused". Oh really? Well then, prove it. And please kind sir, be as technical and as extremely detailed as possible. I am expecting a PHD level thesis and if it is 100 pages long, the better.

Until you can thoroughly do this and PROVE it beyond any reasonable doubt, I kindly ask that you stop making such baseless claims here in this thread. If you cannot do that, then I kindly ask that you please consider refraining from making any further posts in this thread.

Thanks again for all your help.
edit on 21-2-2011 by Red Cloak because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   

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.
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.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Red Cloak
 



Fact = the quakes were never measured in any way

Really?
Are you saying that the damages done by an earthquake can not be used to measure the strength of the EQ?




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.
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.


edit on 21-2-2011 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
287
<< 63  64  65    67  68  69 >>

log in

join