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.


New member checking in to say hi and the reason I signed up about the New Madrid Fault

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 11:40 AM
Hi and dont let the name fool you. I am open to all ideas. I have always been a believer in throw out the high and the low, or the far right and far left, and somewhere in between your gonna have the average, or something that resembles the truth. I am also a believer, in that, history is some form, does repeat itself. So it is important to study it and research it. May not happen the exact same way, but I am sure that physics and the butterfly effect has many topics on this site and no reason to talk about that on an introduction board.

I have watched this board, off and on, for many of year. Decided to become a member for the above reasons. Now, as a disclaimer, I am not saying that I am predicting or forecasting an earthquake of the New Madrid fault on what I am to post below. What I am doing is showing a past comparison of a precedent set of similarities of the 1811-1812 to the 200th year anniversary of the great quake to this year going into 2011-2012. It goes as follows.

With this image, Just thinking out loud here. Thinking of all the flooding lately, and the recent problem in Minot and the Missouri River that will lead into the Mississippi. Plus recent rains that have swollen rivers that flow into the Mississippi River. So I looked at the area where those rivers meet, and was kinda in the general area of the New Madrid Fault. Now just as a thinker, all that rainfall and extra water. Would or could all that extra water cause compaction or compression on the soil adding extra pressure to the fault line? Like I said, just thinking out loud. Sort of like a sponge, becomes heavier once you add a bunch of water to it.

So I did some researching and found this:

Heavy rain can trigger earthquakes
13:44 25 February 2008 by Catherine Brahic

Huge downpours of rain can trigger earthquakes in landscapes riddled with caves and channels by increasing pressure within underlying rock, suggests a new study.

It was already known that rainfall could cause tremors, but the amount of water needed is much more than previously thought, says Steve Miller, a geologist at the University of Bonn, Germany.

In recent years, geologists have documented small earthquakes that occurred after heavy rainfall in Germany, Switzerland and France. All were low in magnitude - meaning they could be detected by seismographs, but not felt by humans.

Some experts have suggested that although the rainfall was heavy, the fact that rain could trigger an earthquake at all suggests that it takes extremely little to produce a tremor. They concluded that the Earth's crust in a delicate balance, teetering on the edge of a slight shake-up at any moment.

Landscape key

Now, in the new study, Miller disagrees, pointing out that all the three documented events happened in a specific type of landscape known as karst.

Other geologists studying rain-triggered earthquakes did note that they occurred in karst geology, but they did not delve into the possible implications.

Karst landscape features a distinctive topography of soft carbonate rock riddled with deep fissures, underground channels and cave systems (see photo, right).

These characteristic features are carved out when carbonate bedrock - typically limestone or dolomite - is dissolved slowly by the action of slightly acidic rainwater over thousands of years. And these structures, says Miller, are key.

Hydraulic jack

On non-karst land surfaces, rainfall presses down on the Earth in a relatively uniform fashion, and is generally fairly swiftly carried away by surface rivers and streams. As a result, the pressure of the rainfall on any underlying fault is small.

But in karst, rain pours into the channels and caves. It does not run off the rock but runs into it, like water running through a complex plumbing network. As a result the pressure of the rain builds up inside the "pipes". And this, says Miller, is what is making rain trigger earthquakes.

He explains that increasing water pressure inside a rock is one of three ways to break it (squeezing and stretching the rock are the other two).

Water pressure acts like a hydraulic jack, pushing the rock apart and allowing the pieces to slide past each other. If this happens on a large scale at a fault line, it can trigger an earthquake.

Delicate balance?

Previously, in 2006, Sebastian Hainzl of the University of Potsdam in Germany and colleagues studied two clusters of rain-triggered earthquakes, all below 2.4 on the Richter scale, that occurred at Mount Hochstaufen in Germany in 2002.

The rainfall had been heavy: over 100 litres of water had pounded on each square metre of land during each deluge.

They calculated that the downpour caused a 300-pascal increase in pressure on a seismic fault beneath the mountain. "Three hundred pascals is very little," says Hainzl's co-author Joachim Wassermann of Munich University, Germany.

The calculation led Hainzl to the conclusion that "the Earth's crust can be so close to failure that even tiny pressure variations associated with precipitation can trigger earthquakes" (Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1029/2006GL027642).

Additional pressure

Now, Miller has revisited data from the same event in Germany. His calculations, unlike Hainzl's, take into account the structure of the karst geology.

By factoring in the stresses of the huge vertical pressure of water building up in the landscape's caves and internal channels on underlying rock, he finds that the heavy rainfall at Mount Hochstaufen resulted in about one mega-pascal of additional pressure on the fault - 3000 times more than Hainzl's estimate.

"The reality is probably somewhere in between," says Wassermann.

Wassermann and his colleagues are continuing their studies of rain-triggered earthquakes by refining their observations and calculations and taking the structure of the land into account, much as Miller has.

Journal reference: Geophysical Journal International (DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2008.03735.x)

Now, I went digging some more for some more similar comparisons to this year and to 1811. According to past historical records, there were in 1811, record amounts of rainfall and flooding in the same areas as this year and in about the same time, the month of June. Read below:

The Great Floods of St Louis

part of the natural order of events that these great
rivers should discharge successively. But when, under
circumstances over which there exists no control, the
ordinary order of successive discharge is changed for
a simultaneous pouring out of all the tributaries, then
comes the "year of great waters," like 1785, 1811,
1823, 1826, 1844, 1858, and 1881. "

"There were high waters so as to overflow the low
grounds and fill the lakes and sloughs on the Ameri-
can Bottom at other seasons subsequent to 1785, but
none that deserve attention until that of 1811. It
was in the summer preceding the " shakes," as the
earthquakes were called. "

"The flood of 1811 was much greater than any that
followed until 1823,"

You can read the rest at :


Apparently there was a major flood in 1811 and occured in June of that year. As well as 1813 and again 1815 afterwards.

So we have a couple precedents for that. Now not only did we have just 3-4 weeks ago, an article came out how scientist were baffled of how quiet the sun was when it should be in a very active period, also, the harsh winter Europe had just came off of. I had done some more digging and came up with this historical reference. Note the author mentions the sun in a 13-year cycle and not the 11-yr cycle we are taught today:

"The most recent major cooling in Europe early in the 19th century, during the three weakest, prolonged (12 or 13 long) cycles of solar activity (1798-1883). This cooling occured during the weakest, 13-year cycle of sunspots, from 1811 till 1823, during the absolute centennial minimum since 1700.
With regard to the Solar System, 1811 was a unique year, as at that time the Sun's distance from the centre of the Systems mass was the smallest (0.14 of the Sun's radius), and the Sun's acceleration was the highest (Boryczka, 1998)"

Just to throw this in, 1811 was the 11th session of congress and 2011 was the start of the 111th session of congress.

Also, 1811, tensions was heating up politcally and militarily with leading to the war of 1812. Just as tensions rising in 2011. Now if you want the kicker. In 1811, there is what was know as the Great Comet of 1811. It was discovered in March and was seen with the naked eye for 260 days. And it was at its brightest, yep you guessed it, mid-October.

So as of now so far:
Comparisons (weirdly) of whats going on now to 1811 of the great New Madrid earthquake.

1) Some type of great flooding or long period of heavy rainfall leading to large river rises occured. Like in 2011, it also occured in 1811 in the month of June, in the same places.
2) 1811 was the 11th session of Congress and 2011 started as the 111th session of Congress
3) An article was published a couple weeks ago where scientist were baffled as to why the sun was going quiet, when it should of beginning its maximum period. In 1811, it was quoted in the link above, 1811 was a unique year for the sun for its quiet period. Note: They tell us today its a 11 year cycle, the paper quoted a 13 year cycle)
4) Europe has just come off possibly the coldest winter in its history, same article above quoted the cooling of Europe in 1811, due to the suns activity. We are still in facts.
5) In 1811, the new moon occured on Dec 15th, the morning of Dec 16th, the earthquake struck. In 2011, we have a new moon on Oct 11th. I will explain why October shortly (speculation part, but also fact, not conspiracy, just head scratching).
6) Most geologist and scientist believe that most earthquakes occur during new and full moons. With new moons the most likely. But when you have new and full moons on days that also equal their apogee or perigee, then you have a "supermoon", this is what some of them, Jim Berkland for example, believe is the window for the most dangerous.
7) Stay with me here, no conspiracy, just facts and honest comparisons, with a little head scratching. Now, in Oct. we have a full moon on the 11th, with the moon apogee on Oct 12th. We have a new moon on Oct 26th, but we also have the moon perigee on, yep, Oct 26th. Now, the JPL say that comet Elenin will make its closest approach on Oct 16th. Right in the middle of the full and new moon and the apogee and perigee, leading up to the 26th that is the new moon, perigee, and passing comet all on the same day. Not saying it means anything but kinda makes you wonder. If that doesnt, I will entice you a bit more.
8) There was what is known as The Great Comet of 1811. Its was seen with the naked eye for 260 days. It was first noticed on March 25th, 1811, and made its closest approach (estimated) but became its most brightest in mid-October.
9) The date of the strongest and first New Madrid quake was on a 16th and the closest approach of this already famous comet noone has even seen yet is on a 16th. October 16th

So am I saying the New Madrid is going to have another major quake on Oct 26th? Sometime between Oct 11th and the 26th? NO, not predicting anything, forecasting anything, just some research, a bit of history, and some strange comparisons, plus something to think about. Because, if anything, it is a bit of odd repeat of history on the 200th anniversary.

Thanks for reading and thanks for allowing me to be a member
edit on 2-7-2011 by sdebunker because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 11:44 AM
Forgot the link for the comet, sorry

The Great Comet of 1811, formally designated C/1811 F1, is a comet that was visible to the naked eye for around 260 days, a record it held until the appearance of Comet Hale-Bopp in 1997. In October 1811, at its brightest, it displayed an apparent magnitude of 0, with an easily visible coma.

The comet was discovered March 25, 1811 by Honoré Flaugergues at 2.7 AU from the sun in the now-defunct constellation of Argo Navis. After being obscured for several days by moonlight, it was also found by Jean-Louis Pons on April 11, while Franz Xaver, Baron Von Zach was able to confirm Flaugergues' discovery the same night.[1]

The first provisional orbit was computed in June by Johann Karl Burckhardt. Based on these calculations, Heinrich Wilhelm Matthäus Olbers made a prediction that the comet would go on to become extremely bright later that year.

[edit] Observations

From May-August, the comet's position made it difficult to spot because of its low altitude and the evening twilight. Both Flaguergues and Olbers were able to recover it in Leo Minor during August, Olbers noting a small but distinct tail, consisting of two rays forming a parabola, when viewing through a comet seeker.[1] By September, in Ursa Major, it was becoming a conspicuous object in the evening sky as it approached perihelion: William Herschel noted that a tail 25° long had developed by October 6.

By January 1812, the comet's brightness had faded. Several astronomers continued to obtain telescopic observations for some months, the last being Vincent Wisniewski at Novocherkassk, who noted it as barely reaching an apparent magnitude of 11 by August 12.[1]

The Great Comet of 1811 was thought to have had an exceptionally large coma, perhaps reaching over 1 million miles across—fifty percent larger than the Sun.[2] The comet's nucleus was later estimated at 30–40 km in diameter[3] and the orbital period was calculated at 3,757 years (later adjusted to 3,065 years). In many ways the comet was quite similar to Comet Hale-Bopp: it became spectacular without passing particularly close to either the Earth or the Sun, but had an extremely large and active nucleus.

[edit] Allusions in culture

The Great Comet of 1811 seems to have had a particular impact on non-astronomers. The artists John Linnell and William Blake both witnessed it, the former producing several sketches and the latter possibly incorporating it in his famous panel The Ghost of a Flea.[4]

At the mid-point of War and Peace, Tolstoy describes the character of Pierre observing this "enormous and brilliant comet [...] which was said to portend all kinds of woes and the end of the world". The comet was popularly thought to have portended Napoleon's invasion of Russia (even being referred to as "Napoleon's Comet")[5] and the War of 1812, among other events.

The year 1811 turned out to be particularly fine for wine production, and merchants marketed 'Comet Wine' at high prices for many years afterwards. The film Year Of The Comet, a 1992 romantic comedy adventure film, is based on this premise and tells the story of the pursuit of a contemporarily discovered bottle of wine from the year of the Great Comet bottled for Napoleon. The film stars Penelope Ann Miller, Tim Daly and French film legend Louis Jourdan (his last film before retiring to the south of France, which is known for its wine making). [6]

Astronomers also found the comet a memorable sight. William Henry Smyth, comparing his recollections of the Great Comet of 1811 to the spectacular Donati's Comet, stated that "as a mere sight-object, the branched tail was of greater interest, the nucleus with its 'head-veil' was more distinct, and its circumpolarity was a fortunate incident for gazers".

posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 12:17 PM
You sound like you have a good attitude to help make heads and tails of this crazy, mixed up world. The Madrid fault is not my strong point but hope to hear from you on the many other topics that cross these boards.

Earthquakes are very complex with many interactions going on. It does take a lot of science to sort of the fact from the fiction with possibly many different types and reasons for why they do what they do. Here is a good source for Earthquake data if you are looking for some connections .
edit on 2-7-2011 by kwakakev because: added bit about earthquakes

posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 12:24 PM
Oh you will. I am an independant researcher and like to take a common sense, open minded approach to things. Kind of a "out of the box" thinker. Like to listen to all sides, because each individual has their own talent, and knowing how to tie each one of those talents together is the key. I got plenty, trust me

posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 02:51 PM
Hello from Texas and Welcome to ATS
Pretty heavy stuff for an introduction ya think ?
20 posts will come soon enough
see ya on the Threads

posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 03:41 PM

Maybe, something I can re-post in the appropriate thread after my 20 post, but I am one to not beat around the bush with words. I signed up to share my research projects, so, might as well be up front about it from the the beginning right?

But thank you for the welcome, it is appreciated.

posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 03:47 PM
What an absolutely riveting read your introductory post is. I know squat about New Madrid as opposed to San Andreas but the comet thing has me glued. Have to confess that I always thought of water and earthquakes much differently and it looks like I'm going to be throwing out some of my preconceived ideas.

posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 03:48 PM

Originally posted by kwakakev
You sound like you have a good attitude to help make heads and tails of this crazy, mixed up world. The Madrid fault is not my strong point but hope to hear from you on the many other topics that cross these boards.

Earthquakes are very complex with many interactions going on. It does take a lot of science to sort of the fact from the fiction with possibly many different types and reasons for why they do what they do. Here is a good source for Earthquake data if you are looking for some connections .
edit on 2-7-2011 by kwakakev because: added bit about earthquakes

Use that site all the time. I agree, all kinds of interactions. My research posted above wasnt so much as the interactions or to predict an earthquake, but the comparisons from 1811 to 2011 so far. My questioning as to, would these same set of circumstances create a similar set of parameters to 1811 that would trigger another large magnitude New Madrid quake. I guess what I am saying is, I would put it more in the realm of, lets say, a current "observation mode" than anything else.

posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 07:07 PM
Being new to this site, I can see I might of made a thread out of my introduction as to which I apologize. But it really is an introduction to me and type of research I do, at least a sample of it. I will not expand as much on future posts until I reach my 20 and put in the appropriate topic thread.

Thank you for your understanding

posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 07:10 PM
Anyone, with me being new, know what subject thread this would be most appropriate to go, once I reach the justified limit of 20 posts? Earthquake section or theory type section since its not really a prediction, but just basically a research project that turned up weird comparisons

Thank you

posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 07:10 PM
reply to post by sdebunker

Welcome to ATS. Interesting observations. Some points if I may for your consideration.

There have been many occasions of flooding in the area since 1811.

There have been many supermoons. The last one recently was predicted by many people to set off the NM fault, but it did not. In fact some of the best known charlatans people such as Berkland predicted this. It did not happen. It will not happen this October either.

Elenin is tiny and will have no effect on Earth,

Of the first two these have not produced another quake of the same ilk as 1811 (which is not to say that it could not happen - just observations.)

I live near karst in the West of Ireland - not exactly renowned for it's dry weather (260 wet days last year I believe - and yes flooding), yet just about the most earthquake free area in the world. Indeed the Burren is near by and my house stands on limestone, which is the structure of the whole of the valley below me.

I am not saying that what you have researched is wrong, just making observation that appears not to fit with some of the findings. I would be interested to hear how you correlate these?

posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 07:13 PM
reply to post by sdebunker

Fragile Earth forum is the place. I would start a new thread on it, basically because the topic deserves attention and adding it to a thread such as quake watch it will simply get lost after a few posts.

posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 07:24 PM
I see it as no more as an observation, as we both have noted. The only corelation to note between 1811 and 2011 would be the similarities that happened together in the same year. The flooding has always happened and always will as you noted. But it is the same combination of things, that I feel, would be difficult to find, that all happened in the same year, same place, same time of year. I think it is possible that you might be, and I could be wrong, assuming I am tending on forces from the comet as the cause. I am not, I tend to lean on the side of history, in sorts, repeats itself. Its not the fact that any forces of the comet may or may not affect the Earth, its the fact that in 1811 and 2011, with similar factors, both had a very visible comet that peaked in mid october. If that even happens.

I am not trying to link the comet into the scenario, just history is all. Like I said, no predictions, forecasts, just observation and research mode at this point. Still searching for more. But, also, the underground terrain, just like the scientist in the article that heavy rain can cause earthquakes in his study. So I am not centered on the comet, if there is one, or the size, just the fact there was one in 1811, added with the other similar factors as 2011, at the same time, as a possible historical precedent. Thats all, nothing more, nor nothing less. But I do welcome your opinion, because you may think of something I havent, that very well may enhance a point or disprove a point I hadnt thought of. It works both ways and helps me with my research and form my opinion.

Thank you for your viewpoints and noted.
edit on 2-7-2011 by sdebunker because: Had a typo, typed for and meant form

posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 07:25 PM
Thank you, I will write that topic thread down and re-post it on that if that is the appropriate place you feel.

I appreciate the help

posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 07:35 PM
reply to post by sdebunker

Originally posted by sdebunker

Maybe, something I can re-post in the appropriate thread after my 20 post, but I am one to not beat around the bush with words. I signed up to share my research projects, so, might as well be up front about it from the the beginning right?

But thank you for the welcome, it is appreciated.

Unfortunately your opening thread would not be suitable in it's present state. you have not used external quote tags

( blue bar beside external quote)
in your thread, over quoted as well.

Take you time and see how our threads are formatted so you get off on the right foot.

You are more than welcome to post a new introduction thread about you, if you wish.

Twenty well thought out replies are not hard to achieve, some members do it with their intro thread, or alternatively they go to the Off-Topic Discussions forums. That's the large Blue Tab on the Recent Posts page.

If you have any questions you can either ask them in an intro thread, someone will reply. Or just message me, or any staff member anytime.

Some handy links, links and more links.

Index of Important ATS Related Threads

Start Here - ATS Freshmans Forum

Hey new members!! Come here if you need advice

Starting a New Thread ?... Look Here First

Terms & Conditions Of Use (Please read)

Rules for Avatars and Mini-Profile Background images

Signature Guidelines

Thread closed, and or removed.


edit on 2/7/2011 by Sauron because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics


log in