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: 16
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 01:02 AM
Curious thing about drilling,they have this project going on the SAD fault.

posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 01:25 AM
reply to post by westcoast

Love reading the way your mind and efforts work. Thanks.

All--I wonder if the following graphic could add any . . . interrest or clues to this puzzle.

I don't think much of the astronomy stuff on it--who knows what's real in all that complexity.

I do find the quake conjectures, info fascinating, though.

Originally from here:

Personally, my slight to moderate hunch is that the Vancouver Island quake is the foreshock.

I think I can get it to show up via my photobucket account here:

Rats--the most important part got chopped off . . . let me see what I can do with the image in my photobucket acct.


edit on 13/9/2011 by BO XIAN because: comment on chopped graphic

edit on 13/9/2011 by BO XIAN because: SEEING IF CROPPED IMAGE WILL SHOW

edit on 13/9/2011 by BO XIAN because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 07:23 AM

Great Alert

For WC (Clouds)

Some video

Okay, some of you probably have already seen or know about most of this info but I thought I would share. I don't really know how to put it all together but, do with it what you will. I found the first link the most interesting but threw the others in. These were all found with a Google search "JPL predicting Earthquakes". (Google is my friend)

I am counting down the minutes until we get an "update". I think I may have too much free time on my hands.

posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 07:52 AM
I just posted this to the Arkansas swarm thread too...

"iv been been reading and watching this thread as well as the earthquakes going on and just found this 3.5 in california.. I know its not very big, but it was not very deep either."

Tuesday, September 13, 2011 at 12:27:13 UTC
Tuesday, September 13, 2011 at 05:27:13 AM at epicenter

Location 35.727°N, 121.109°W
Depth 8 km (5.0 miles)

12 km (7 miles) NE (38°) from San Simeon, CA
19 km (12 miles) N (354°) from Cambria, CA
21 km (13 miles) W (267°) from Lake Nacimiento, CA
40 km (25 miles) WNW (286°) from Paso Robles, CA
193 km (120 miles) SSE (158°) from San Jose City Hall, CA

Been a little edgy since reading this thread.. Anyone with new info should post and keep this thread going as we all want to be informed.

posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 03:34 PM
Nothing from Tmiddlebrooks so far....but I did go back over their posts and I just wrote this over on the arkansas thread:


You know, I was just reading back over tmiddlebrooks posts, and again this comment stood out for me:

I stress, timing is everything, and thus why there is no current public data. New information if pouring in daily, however we're moving in the wrong direction.

I've always said that I question whether or not the public would be alerted even if the Government knew of something major about to happen on the coast. The main reason being political and economical. Could you imagine the fall-out? Just the mass evacuation and terror that would ensue.....the looting, crime, hysteria, other states being over-run with millions fleeing the coast. The stockmarket would crash, our fragile economy would Our government couldn't risk it.. Better to let it happen and cut loses later. Seriously. Think about it.

I think that is what this statement is referring to. Just my opinion.

posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 03:39 PM
I am sorry if this has been said already, I have been sifting through a lot of information today. This crossed my mind since I came from a town that ended in ton but really meant town.

Middle Town

Hope some one can do something with this info.

Mount St. Helena is only 8.4 miles away! (I think we need to find out if this place is steaming.)

edit on 13-9-2011 by Doodle19815 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 04:30 PM
reply to post by Doodle19815

Nice work,but tmiddlebrook keeps referring to southern california.

posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 02:27 AM
link nothing from middlebrook. In spite of the fact that according to their profile, the were logged on today.

posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 03:43 AM

edit on 14-9-2011 by dpage because: my mistake didnt see that OP was still posting and member

posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 06:21 AM
Looks like you guys have been busy!
I had to take a little break...
...but I'm back now.

Just re-read everything, including the new pages you guys have put together... sooo much information. It's still sinking in.

One thing I wanted to belch out here is this: Didn't we have an odd earthquake in West Texas on Sep 10 (Elenin perihelion)? Related to this whole EQ mess we've been discussing? I think I read a post in here that said someone had predicted an EQ event within the next 48 hours or something like that... and the prediction was made just before Sep 10... co-winky-dink?

I'll be back tomorrow after marinating on the new posts. Again, great work here guys!
Reminds me of the days of ATS before the "money" took over.
edit on 14-9-2011 by DamaSan because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 08:44 AM
reply to post by DamaSan

Hey, thanks for the reminder. I think it has been about 48 hrs since that 'window' of 24 - 72 for another 'fore-shock'

I agree that the information turned up on here and other threads has made this worth the time, even if middlebrooks is full of it.

posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 08:56 AM

Originally posted by jadedANDcynical
reply to post by kdog1982


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.

emphasis mine

Not 48 to 72...72 to 96

We are still just on the edge of the timeframe but awareness is always a good thing.

posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:07 AM

Just had a 4.2 in Yucaipa, So Cal. Foreshock?

edit on 14-9-2011 by SunnyDee because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:24 AM
reply to post by SunnyDee


In the time frame that Middlebrook

posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:28 AM
reply to post by crazydaisy

Indeed it is. But, then, look at the period tmiddlebrook gave - 3 to 4 days. What were the chances that there was going to be an earthquake of some sort in SoCal in that time frame?

posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:35 AM
reply to post by CLPrime

The chances of a 4.2 in that time frame, I
don't know what to say. And it was in
the LA area. I just hope this was not
a foreshock!!.

posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:42 AM
reply to post by crazydaisy

Not necessarily the chances of a 4.2, specifically, in that time frame... but of any earthquake. Is it statistically probable that there was going to be an earthquake in that 4-day period? (And, of course, the question isn't directed at's directed at anyone who can give an answer.)
If it is, then tmiddlebrook could have used that to his/her advantage to make the prediction. If it's not, then we could have actual evidence that tmiddlebrook is legit.

I just don't know enough about earthquake frequency in SoCal to say one way or the other.

posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 11:38 AM
reply to post by CLPrime

I can only go on what I experienced when
I lived in S. Calif. We had a 3. or 4. from
time to time, about every 6 months maybe.
To me when I consider that Tmiddlebrook
mentioned the 3 -4 day time frame I would
say it was pretty rare. We now need a
scientific viewpoint on this I think.

posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 11:44 AM
reply to post by crazydaisy

The Newhall 4.3 a couple of weeks ago and now this 4.2, I consider a sign. CrazyD is right, maybe only every 6 months or so, do we get one this size. I think TM (can we call him that, I'm tired of typing his name) was on to something. Just my personal opinion of course.

Draw a line from Newhall to Yucaipa, straight through the LA Basin.

posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 01:28 PM
reply to post by SunnyDee

So ofcourse I think we were all thinking the same thing when we saw the quake this morning.

I think a good way of measuring how often these occur, is whether it makes the news.

Here is the first one on September 1st:

L.A. earthquake: 4.2 quake felt across Southern California [Updated]

...There’s a lot of faults in that area, very complex geology,” Guarino said.

He said there were at least five aftershocks following the 1:47 p.m. main quake.
The earthquake Thursday produced about 178 times less energy than last week’s East Coast quake, a magnitude 5.8 centered in Virginia, Guarino said.

Guarino said the quake offers a reminder to the public to drop, cover and hold on in the event of a large quake and not run outside like many East Coast people did.

And one on the quake today:

4.1 earthquake hits Southern California

The quake occurred in a complicated network of faults near the intersection of the Banning and San Jacinto faults, she said.

“We’re normally not able to assign a fault to a quake that small, because so many faults could do it,” she said. “Most of them don’t have names anyway.”

All I put into the search engine was California quake...those are the first two hits. THAT puts it into perspective for me!

top topics

<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in