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 ATS Member Claiming To Have Important Warning/Information. You Be The Judge...

page: 15
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 05:35 PM

Originally posted by chasingbrahman
reply to post by kdog1982

I didn't think ATS allowed conversations about banned members to take place. So we couldn't discuss ahem, but we can discuss this guy? Does ATS distribute a post-ban discussion guide?

He is not banned,not tmiddlebrook36.

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 05:38 PM

Originally posted by kdog1982

Originally posted by crazydaisy
I do wish Tmiddlebrook would check in
again, its been some time now since the
first message and the last.

Being that only 150 people are privey to this stuff,if he is associated with any of them,I think they could have found out who it was.

This though has occurre to me as well and if this is the case then we may never hear any more about this.

Unless seone else grows a conscience and comes forward as tmiddlebrook has (if legit).

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 06:01 PM
reply to post by jadedANDcynical

He has posted again,some emails and a meeting tomorrow.

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 06:15 PM
reply to post by kdog1982

What do you think he/she meant in mentioning
a foreshock in the next 72 - 96 hours - I think
it was? Something larger than the swarms
are producing, a prelude to a much larger
quake? Perhaps the meeting tomorrow
will shed more light and he/she will let
us know the outcome.

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 06:19 PM
reply to post by kdog1982

And here it is:

Originally posted by tmiddlebrook36
More info. This is an intercept of an email:

Once again, it reads backwards, so start at the bottom.

(I am scheduled to participate in the MB tomorrow, I'm hoping to have more info at that time)


From: xxxxxxx
Date: Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 12:44 PM
Subject: Re: UPDATE: Precautionary
To: xxxxxx

Thanks xxxxxx. Based on your history, I would agree. We'll continue tomorrow at our MB. Thanks!


Sent via iPhone


On Sep 12, 2011, at 11:28 AM, xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:27 AM
Subject: UPDATE: Precautionary
To: xxxxxxxxx


As we follow the data, my discernment concludes the risk of an additional foreshock within the next 72 to 96 hours likely. Obviously, based on what we have witnessed in recent weeks. Again, supporting our discussion early today, in my opinion the main shock remains only subjectively imminent.

Would love to know your thoughts.


"an additional foreshock"

Which one that has happened is considered a foreshock?

The vancouver 6ish? If so that is definitely not in or near SoCal. Though if, as WC theorizes, the San Andreas is a symptom of a deeper extension of the Cascadia fault rather than a major fault in and of itself it may be more directly connected.

Something is tickling my brain regarding faults, subduction, and tectonics in general though which I can't quite put my finger on. I'm vaguely recalling an idea that would put all of that out the window though.

I'm at work tonight so my research time is limited.

Keep digging people, this might be HUGE.

I wish I knew if tmiddlebrook were reading this thread in addition to their drive-by posting in the Arkansas thread.

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 07:05 PM
reply to post by jadedANDcynical

great minds think alike...

I posted this over in the Arkansas thread

As we follow the data, my discernment concludes the risk of an additional foreshock within the next 72 to 96 hours likely. Obviously, based on what we have witnessed in recent weeks. Again, supporting our discussion early today, in my opinion the main shock remains only subjectively imminent.

So what do you guys and gals think about this statement?

the risk of an additional foreshock within the next 72 to 96 hours likely

meaning, there has been a foreshock, there is a risk of an additional foreshock likely within the next 72 to 96 hours. So, where was the original foreshock?

and, in my opinion the main shock remains only subjectively imminent. means they are NOT SURE

This is driving me crazy and also making my head hurt from thinking

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 07:45 PM
I am sure tmiddlebrook is reading these couple of threads. Probably not signed in, is all. Seems like he/she must feel very worried with sharing info, and yet can't help themself.

Unfortunately, the posts only share enough to make us crazy for more information.

Tmiddlebrook, if you are sincere, you might as well post enough to give us a clear direction. Right now, we know by you that there is a large earthquake that is imminent. But how imminent, days, months? And where exactly, San Andreas north and south. L.A., New Madrid? And what foreshock, Vancouver, Newhall, Colorado, Virginia? Please come on back and share a tad more, what can it hurt, you've already shared the big info.

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 08:02 PM
I really have this feeling that this person is just a REALLY excited "little person" in all of this. They know just enough to be dangerous to themselves. Hopefully, tomorrow we will find out more.

I am really new to all of this as most of you can tell. I am a little excited by all of what is happening right now in the EQ world. I never knew that all of this was possible and could happen in such a way. I have never felt an EQ so I never gave them much thought at all. Westcoast is a patient teacher though and whether or not she knows she is teaching, I appreciate her anyhow.

After google-ing "JPL says imminent M8 Earthquake" I came across this link that some of you may be familiar with. I just wanted to throw it out there. You guys make it easy for me to follow, keep up the great work.

Silent EQ's

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 09:08 PM
reply to post by Doodle19815

Doodle, your link really has alot of good info, especially in regards to our current debate over TMiddlebrook.

He warned of swarms

Quote from your link:

These swarms of micro-earthquakes are a clear sign that the silent temblor is adding stress to the fault zone, say the authors, and some day might provide an early warning that a harmless silent event is likely to trigger a destructive mega-earthquake of M8 or larger.

some researchers have speculated that silent quakes may be precursors of M8 and M9 mega-temblors that regularly occur in subduction zones--

Just a little oddity...I noticed at the end of the article it said the information was provided courtesy of Stanford University via EurekAlert and TMiddlebrook always signs off by saying "Stay Alert" . Possible connection? Am I Grasping at straws again? Probably. Here's a brief explanation of what EurekAlert does:

EurekAlert! provides a central place through which universities, medical centers, journals, government agencies, corporations and other organizations engaged in research can bring their news to the media.

emphasis mine


posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 09:44 PM
This article caught my eye due to it's title : Pursuing the Grail of an Earthquake Predictor, but Facing Skeptics.

The project, called QuakeFinder, involves installing some 200 five-foot-tall sensors near fault lines to measure changes in underground magnetic fields and detect electrically charged particles in the air. The theory behind it is that changes in electromagnetic fields can foretell quakes.

Also of interest:

Would the governor issue an earthquake warning based on Quakefinder? A State Emergency Management Agency spokesman, Jordan Scott, said the agency will “always look into” claims that an earthquake is imminent, but its agrees with the U.S. Geological Survey that quake prediction is impossible.

USGS thinks they're quacks but QuakeFinder in turn thinks USGS is stuck in the dark ages.


ETA This company is funded by NASA (among others)!!
edit on 12-9-2011 by megabogie because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 09:58 PM
Okay WOQ, take a deep breath!
Lost my post three times trying to go back & forth to tabs for info.
Tech challenged person + computersaurus = lots of stress!!!

When I read the new post I had a light bulb moment. Admittedly, it's a pretty dim bulb, but I had to throw this out there...
What if it's Virginia? Not quite 35/36 latitude, but maybe a little off on purpose.
There is a Middlebrook in Virginia. I don't remember if that was mentioned before. But not in California.
First Virginia eq 8/23. First posting 8/26. Maybe that uncommon eq made them realize there was trouble. The east coast is not prepared for eqs. I'm thinking too of the video someone posted of the USGS dude saying they down graded the eq from a 6 or larger, because of the nuc plants. Plus D.C., N.Y. & Philly are some of the most heavily populated cities on the east coast, & would probably be affected.
The post today says, "...additional foreshock within...". So there has been a quake they are calling a foreshock, which will be recognized as such.
Post on 9/1, "So Cal. The ground is already moving as well." As in..'.in addition to'...besides the place that they are expecting the big one. Implying there will be other quakes in that time frame? Or seemingly related ones? Like Colorado & Virginia? Now Texas looks like it's on a roll.
Before Virginia's big one, for three days, there was a swarm of good sized quakes in Vanuatu. And New Guinea, Japan & Sumatra each had a moderate one the two days before. Just about everyday that Virginia has had some, so have Vanuatu, Japan, New Guinea & Indonesia. Now they are starting up again fairly close together.

Thoughts anyone? I hope I'm wrong!

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 10:12 PM
reply to post by wasobservingquietly

Could be connected.
But didn't tmiddlebrook mention something about keeping an eye on the swarm of small quakes in Cali?
I'm beginning to think Parkfield and the swarm just north on the fault there,and nothing going on below it because that part of the fault is locked and may soon release.

Forgot to add this, from a link I found on a link provided by Doodle19815.Thank you Doodle!

Parkfield is at the northern end of a locked segment of the San Andreas Fault (SAF) that, in 1857, ruptured south from Monarch Peak (MP) in the great 7.8 magnitude Ft. Tejon quake. As a result of nearby earthquakes in 2003 and 2004, tremors developed under Cholame and Monarch Peak. The black dots pinpoint 1250 well-located tremors. The square boxes are 30 kilometers (19 miles) on a side. Color contours give regional shear-stress change at 20 km depth from the Parkfield earthquake (green segment) along the SAF. The thrust-type San Simeon earthquake rupture is represented by the gray rectangle and line with triangles labeled SS. The currently locked Cholame segment is about 63 km long (solid portion of the arrow) and is believed capable of rupturing on its own in a magnitude 7 earthquake. The gray lines within the Cholame box bound the west quadrant, where quasiperiodic episodes predominate. (Credit: Robert Nadeau/UC Berkeley, courtesy Science

edit on 12-9-2011 by kdog1982 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 10:16 PM
reply to post by kdog1982

Pretty sure Middlebrook said something
to that effect. He/she mentioned quakes
already happening and I took it as meaning
California from the beginning.

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 10:18 PM
reply to post by Doodle19815

So called "silent earthquakes" have come to be known as "Episodic Tremor & Slip" (ETS) and are mentioned in a few posts scattered between several threads. WC has a good deal in her "putting it all together" thread and probably a coupleof others as well.

CLPrime posted this a few pages back:

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by westcoast

Have you seen this?

Space-time correlation of slip and tremor during the 2009 Cascadia slow slip event
Received 28 June 2011; accepted 25 August 2011.

Seems to not be published yet.

Draft of the paper.

We conclude that our findings support the hypothesis that tremor results from local heterogeneities within the slipping region that accelerate to high enough slip speed to radiate seismic waves. ...
If ETS events can trigger or evolve into dynamic megathrust earthquakes, locating active slip via the tremor may prove to be a powerful method for monitoring subduction zone activity.

edit on 9-9-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)

So, if there is ETS happening in SoCal, then those small magnitude swarms could conceivably be considered foreshocks in light of this possibility.

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 10:44 PM

Originally posted by jadedANDcynical

So, if there is ETS happening in SoCal, then those small magnitude swarms could conceivably be considered foreshocks in light of this possibility.

Especially given the fact that, as westcoast has been saying, the most recent ETS event in California (which is usually quite regular) was early.

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 11:01 PM
Wow....away from my computer all day and look what I have to catch up on!!

So the plot thickens.

I'm torn. I still think the 6.4 off Vancouver was a fore-shock. And yes, that could tie into an event in California. I have been saying for some time now that I think the next mega thrust quake will be centered down in California...that the San Andreas is going to un-zip when the subduction zone I suspect is to the East of it gives. Ofcourse, this major event would affect the whole of the West Coast...I think we will suffer here to the North too....but that the main event will be to the South. They estimate that the last mega-thrust quake was centered off-shore of Washington State/Oregon. If the subduction zone DOES extend all the way to the South, then wouldn't it make sense for the next place to 'slip' to be at the opposite end?

IF this is the case, than we could expect to see signs/symptoms of this for awhile before it happens. I have been voicing my opinion about the Mammoth Lake and San Andreas swarms in this regard. The early ETS that was centered on Vancouver Island would also play into it as does the 6.4 and 4.2 quakes. There was also a moderate quake off-shore Oregon and now the tremor is centered under crater lake in Oregon. (the ETS event is over, but the tremors, though reduced, don't stop)

If anyone's interest is tickled by this...look at some of my other threads. I have been talking about this for awhile now. The threads are long....but the info is all there.

I've also been saying to watch Oklahoma. The had another 3 range quake today. If you took a 2x4 and pushed against the edges until it started to splinter....the energy traveled through the whole piece, right? It splinters at the weakest point.

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 11:32 PM
reply to post by westcoast

My thinking is the"foreshock" could be small,and that a "swarm" is a more important indicator.
I was wondering about this swarm north of SanFran.

But,what do I know?

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 11:45 PM
reply to post by kdog1982

That area around Cloverdale is always active. We don't (do we?) pay much attention to it (should we?)

Here is some info about The Geysers

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 11:54 PM

Originally posted by berkeleygal
reply to post by kdog1982

That area around Cloverdale is always active. We don't (do we?) pay much attention to it (should we?)

Here is some info about The Geysers

Good info,Berkeley!
It is always better to have someone familiar with the place then someone looking at a map.
I just noticed the concentration of quakes there,and was wondering if it was a possibility.
I still think something is up with the SAF,north of Parkfield.

posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 12:43 AM
The Geysers?

I remember running across mention of that area a LOT while doing research for the Arkansas thread.

Looking in one of my favorite public databases and using the search phrase "The Geysers""induced seismicity" among 10 pages of documents we find Workshop on induced Seismicity due to fluid injection/production from Energy-Related Applications

Resource Relation Conference: Special Geothermal Workshop, Standford University, Stanford, CA, February 4, 2011
Research Org Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA (US)
Sponsoring Org Earth Sciences Division

From the abstract:

Recent publicity surrounding induced seismicity at several geothermal and oil and gas sites points out the need to develop improved standards and practices to avoid issues that may unduly inhibit or stop the above technologies from fulfilling their full potential. It is critical that policy makers and the general community be assured that EGS, CO[sub 2] sequestration, enhanced oil/gas recovery, and other technologies relying on fluid injections, will be designed to reduce induced seismicity to an acceptable level, and be developed in a safe and cost-effective manner. Induced seismicity is not new - it has occurred as part of many different energy and industrial applications (reservoir impoundment, mining, oil recovery, construction, waste disposal, conventional geothermal). With proper study/research and engineering controls, induced seismicity should eventually allow safe and cost-effective implementation of any of these technologies.
emphasis mine

What is an "acceptable level" of induced seismicity if any level has the potential for touching off larger events?

Of course it's not new, it's been known about for a long time, for anyone in the media to listen to anyone from the industry that they're only now finding out about it, when it has been known the entire time smacks of pure unadulterated propaganda.

Well, maybe the "should" try to find a way to stop keeping us sucking on the teat of the energy industry.

Oh wait, that would erode a level of control and we can't have than now can we?

top topics

<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in