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: 32
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 04:29 PM
reply to post by jadedANDcynical

You are awesome JC ,and don't ever forget that!
Keep up the good work.

posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 04:39 PM
reply to post by jadedANDcynical

My grandfather was the smartest man I ever knew and he left school when he was 14. Diplomas ain't everything and you're alright by me.

As you and some others might be interested, I've decided to go ahead and post an explanation of the Afghan connection I mentioned yesterday.

This post and the two following are to explain what I was on about in respect of Afghanistan (and regions thereabouts) and our concerns for California (and ditto regions thereabouts). They are relevant to this thread in that they consider quake prediction and methodologies for the same, which is fundamentally what "t" has talked about.

To help people follow, it's best if I lay out the sequence of events that led to these posts.

In this post in the current thread I said, amongst other things:

[...] I'd like to ask members to keep an eye out for any significant quake activity in the region of Nth Afghanistan, especially around the Hindu Kush region and NW towards Tajikistan and over to Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, which all border the Afghani region I mentioned. There was a mag 4.5 in the Hindu Kush region yesterday (ie Wednesday) and while it could be significant I am more concerned about potential events at least a mag higher.

Note: the above post is logged on ATS at 8:41 pm my time (20:41 CET) on Sept 15, which is 18:41 UTC on that same day.

Then at 12:53 am (CET) on Sept 16 (which is 22:53 [pm] UTC on Sept 15) -- meaning a little over 4 hours after the above post -- berkeleygal posted details of a new quake in the Hindu Kush region, a mag 4.4 which occurred at 22:03:37 UTC on Sept 15 (02:33:37 AM at epicenter) -- namely 3 hours and 20-odd minutes after my post.

Berkeleygal kindly sent me a U2U to let me know about her post, for which I'm grateful as by this time I was not exactly wide awake. (Thank you, berkeleygal!
) I wrote a response to her post here where I explain that I was expecting another quake there soon (in fact more than one), expressed surprise that this one popped up so soon, then went on to give a few details of what to possibly expect and the time window. I also said:

Just to give you all an idea of why I mentioned the Afghani region, have a look on Google earth or wherever and see what part of the world is almost exactly 180 degrees away from 36 to 37 N and 60 degrees E. That is, exactly on the other side of the world, you see. (Namely, around 36 to 37 N and 120 W.)

[...] The other day (yesterday??) I posted that a seismic event could occur elsewhere that might seem unconnected (to the matter at hand in the US) but actually is connected, but in ways that are either not understood or even considered possible.[...]

Anyway, this latest quake in the Afghani Hindu Kush region is basically what I was talking about. It's the connection I meant. One of them, anyway.

The above post is logged at 02:09 AM CET, namely 00:09 AM UTC, Sept 16.

Okay, so there's the time line. Now to explain the connection I referred to.

A few years ago, I noticed that when there was any significant seismic activity in the Afghani region I mentioned, there seemed to be some uptick in activity in the US, mainly in SoCal. I noticed also that after there had been some pretty major bombing campaigns in that region of Afghanistan, there were sometimes earthquakes there. This made sense to me, as dropping lots of huge bombs (including ones of 2,000 lbs) into an area that's seismically active could stir things up a bit.

Problem was, when it did stir things up -- or appeared to -- there was sometimes also an increase in quakes in the US regions I mentioned, within the time frame of the following three days or so. I cannot quantify this or offer hard data; at the time it was merely something I had observed.

Lack of hard data notwithstanding I began to take more notice, and after a while I saw that the US region noted and that part of Afghanistan were at around the same latitude, and laterally (across the world -- not antipodally) almost exactly 180 degrees apart.

This started to ring little bells for me -- but as I'm running out of space in this post I'll continue in the next one.

posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 04:40 PM
(Continued from previous post)

I began to ponder if there was a cause-and-effect relationship here, and if so, what it might be. I also began to look around the planet to see if there were other regions where similar (possible) relationships seemed to exist, and one I found was between the Northern Mid-Atlantic Ridge and the Kamchatka region. They are also about 180 degrees apart and at about the same latitude. I noticed that when there was a quake on the Nth Mid-Atlantic Ridge above a mag 5.0 -- and especially when more towards a mag 6 or so -- then on some occasions I observed a quake of similar size in the Kamchatka region within the following three days.

Now, while the theory of "remote triggering" is known to scientists in this field, it basically says that large quakes in one region can set off smaller ones in places a great distance away. It was specifically noted that bigger quakes in parts of Alaska seemed to be followed by an uptick in the number of small quakes in the Yellowstone (YS) region. In fact, as I recall, it was this observation that led to more research on the concept of remote triggering.

However, the causative mechanisms are not totally clear. What I mean is that while it's assumed to be due to energy transference through the planet, as far as I know it's not yet been determined why some big quakes in parts of AK have this effect on YS, but even larger ones in other places apparently don't have such a definable relationship and YS doesn't have any increase in quakes attributable to them.


I think it's partly to do with harmonics of some kind. Or resonance, if you will. A poor analogy would be that if you take a crystal wine glass and rub the rim you can make it ring -- if you use the right amount of pressure and rub it in just the right way. Oddly, exerting less pressure but applying the "rub" in a very precise way can make the glass ring more than heavier pressure will if applied in a slightly-less-than-right way, if you follow.

Okay, our planet isn't a crystal wine glass, but it's a physical object with varying levels of interconnectness between its various parts. Ergo, some parts may be more connected and also may be more subject to harmonic effects, but they vary in strength based upon the materials involved and the basic "fragility" (or seismic instability) of the relevant regions.

For example, I had noted that in respect of the Nth Mid-Atlantic Ridge and Kamchatka, it was not a case of a (say) mag 5.5 in the former being followed by a mag 3-something or so in the latter. Within that mysterious 3-day time window, Kamchatka's quakes were sometimes within a single magnitude of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge quakes and in a few cases were even virtually identical in total energy release (ie magnitude) or stronger.

While the total number of observations I was able to make in this regard was small, there was the suggestion of a trend and that was enough to make me look further.

There are a multitude of reasons why this "quake > similar quake" relationship may exist. But I believe that a key one could be this: Kamchatka is highly volcanic. Yes, it has a fair amount of seismic activity but also lots of volcanoes. Yellowstone is also (obviously) volcanic, but while it's a super volcano and it's known to have a large magma chamber below it, YS is not as openly active over such a huge area as Kamchatka, where the volcanic chain covers hundreds of miles and often there are volcanoes actually in eruptive states.

California, on the other hand, is nowhere near as volcanic, but all the same, the quakes in Afghanistan seem to trigger ones there -- but smaller ones. So even if the basic (energy transfer) causative mechanisms are similar to the AK-YS and Nth Mid-Atlantic Ridge-Kamchatka ones, this relative lack of volcanism seems to dampen the triggering effect.

So, the underlying material, as it were -- and the energy related to it -- seems of critical importance. And as the amount of volcanism in the western regions of the USA seems to increase as we go further north, from California into Oregon, that is, I have to wonder what would happen if a major quake occurred a little futher north of the Afghan region I mentioned, especially if it were around 180 degrees away from the Oregon region. Lots of volcanoes there, in OR.

If you're still with me, I'll give details in the next (final) post in this long explanation that link to posts I have made on the past on ATS where I discussed these matters and also used the 180-degree theory outlined above for actual prediction.

edit on 16/9/11 by JustMike because: I fixed a typo.

posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 04:40 PM
The ATS references that follow are taken from posts within the An Experiment in Alternative Methods of Earthquake Prediction thread, started by Kattrax in May, 2008 to provide an opportunity for ATS members to experiment in alternative ways to predict earthquakes.

Okay, on to some posts that relate to the "180 degree" idea. I joined the "Experiment" thread on May 28, 2008, and that day I first discussed the possible relationships between Afghanistan and seismic activity in Cali. The whole post is here.

Kattrax referred to quake swarms in her state of NV, and as this state borders Cali what I'd noted still held and I mentioned this. However, I inadvertently reversed my E and W longitude notations but it seems no-one was perturbed and probably just did their own mental readjusments. It was just before midnight my time when I posted -- but it was a mighty face palm for yours truly
when I read that post again the next day.

The next post that I related to the "180 degree" topic is here. It's dated June 1, 2008. I give details of a quake in Iceland, discuss its potential effects on Nthn Kamchatka and the fact that a quake then occurred there, and deride myself for not posting a prediction based on it.

Note: the links to the USGS pages are no longer active because (except for major quakes) they drop off the system after 7 days. However, as quake data is archived it can be checked via the NEIC database or similar by anyone who wishes to.

To finish things off, here are details of a prediction that I did make using the "180 degree" concept. First, in this post on December 18, 2008 at 11:08 pm my time (23:08 CET/22:08 UTC Dec 18), I said:

Please also keep an eye on the Kamchatka region. I will probably post specific details tomorrow. (ie in about 12 hours from now.)

When I make such posts it's because I have intuited something but don't yet have the specifics. I cannot explain it further than that, so if skeptics wish to hammer at me then so be it. I don't care one way or the other. It's all logged, just as my other predictions are, along with the "hits" and "no hits".

Anywho, on Dec 19, 2008, at 11:21 my time (11:21 CET/10:21 UTC Dec 19) -- namely just over 12 hours later -- I wrote in this post:

Referring back to my short post from yesterday about the Kamchatka region, I'd like to now post a prediction. I am expecting a quake in this region of at least a magnitude 5.0 but more likely in the 6.0 range, with a time window within the next three days. The most likely region is actually in the Nth Kuril Islands, in the circle I've added to the map below, at approx 153E, 47N, but I have to state that historically, the fault region NE of here within the Kamchatka region itself is known to be unstable and could be affected.

Anyway here's the map:

(The map's in the post.)

I gave a time window of three days because that's what I'd noted was around the maximum limit. Giving myself a much longer window would have been counter-productive. A shorter time window also lowers the odds of a quake occuring purely by chance. I prefer that.

Now to Dec 22. At 5:01 pm my time (17:01 CET/ 16:01 UTC Dec 22), in this post I said:

Today Dec 22 (ie three days after I made this prediction) there was a mag 5.0 quake in the Kuril Islands. The USGS data page is below:

(A screen shot of the data page is posted.)

I then said:

This quake's coordinates of 46.528°N, 152.582°E are within half a degree of what I stated as the "target area" (as I call it.)

The map I posted with the original prediction on Dec 19 (which is in that post) and today's map from USGS showing the quake's location are reproduced below for anyone to compare:

(The maps are in the post.)

Later that day I posted an explanation of how I did that prediction. For anyone who's read this far, I think it will suffice to just give you the relevant post here. It includes maps that show the relationship and a few other details as well.

Yes, "one swallow does not a summer make", but that first little bird is a least a promise of what may come. And yes, I've only detailed one possible methodology that needs further research.

I hope it might be useful for someone.


posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 04:46 PM
I am keeping a low profile today guys....gotta step back for a bit. (at least until tonight

BUT....this is bothering me:

MAP 6.2 2011/09/16 21:08:06 40.221 143.050 20.2 OFF THE EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
MAP 5.5 2011/09/16 20:11:15 40.305 143.180 19.0 OFF THE EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
MAP 5.2 2011/09/16 19:39:46 40.403 142.034 10.4 NEAR THE EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
MAP 6.6 2011/09/16 19:26:42 40.288 142.727 36.3 NEAR THE EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN

@Justmike....i don't have time to read your post right now...but most definately will later!!!

posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 04:49 PM
reply to post by westcoast

I have been out most of the day,
I knew Japan had a 6.2 but I didn't
know they had 3 other significant
quakes, No tsunami warnings I

posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 05:01 PM

Originally posted by RoguePhilosopher

When you have an email trail that is vague from each contributer with not one person stating a one clear specific or even asking a clear specific question? i.e. request for info!

Then its unlikely to be geniune and most likely constructed by some dumb f..k nerd!

Nice deflection~! wow... but ..if you knew they monitor email..

DOH ~! keep trying !! LOL

posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 05:06 PM

Originally posted by Aggie Man
My BS detector is going off big time. First off, EQs can not be predicted; let alone magnitude of future EQ. Secondly, this is a brand spanking new member and that was their first and only post. Lastly, They left very vague information without explaining further.

I smell an attention seeking troll.

that's because your BS detector is ALWAYS going off ~!!!






Possibilites..................which means's POSSIBLE

posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 05:11 PM

Originally posted by jadedANDcynical

I have very little formal education. I am (and always have been) largely self-taught. I don't even have a high school diploma but rather only G.E.D. So on paper I'm below average. I don't know if this will color the way in which my posts are though of, but I do want everyone to know this.

What I do have is an insatiable curiosity, an ability to read and quickly assimilate new information and ideas, the capacity for outside the box thinking(probably the norm here at ATS), an intuitive ability of pattern recognition, an almost unconscious ability to see relationships, causes/effects (even very tenuously connected ones), and a pretty good ability to recall things.

If I don't remember something specific I can figure it of by asking good questions (probably the most important trait of a researcher).

I'm not afraid to make mistakes, as those often tmes will allow one to learn more than a success, or to entertain completely absurd ideas.

Right, so, again I want to say thanks to everyone who has found any worth in my work here and am glad to know that my contributing helps, amateur though it is.

I hope you don't mind me saying it again, but when I got done reading this I couldn't remember if I had written it or someone else. Then I remembered that I am afraid to make mistakes and probably wouldnt have been so bold. But 9 out of ten on the other stuff for sure.

Anyway, spoken like a true champion. And I love reading your stuff.

posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 05:17 PM
reply to post by onthelookout

Quick break from catching up on the wealth of information that is pouring in here to say, thank you for the pointer to Westcoasts thread regarding ETS

posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 05:30 PM
reply to post by westcoast

Those latest Japan quakes bother me too.

Conventional science would say that they're aftershocks of the huge event of March 11, but on the other hand a cluster of them in that one location, all occuring just one day after the Fiji Mag 7.3 quake, along with other things that have been going on, makes me wonder if "aftershock" is always the best argument. Okay, by standard definition, they're aftershocks, but I feel that term can be a bit of a cop-out at times.

The general premise is that aftershocks are just the result of settling and readjustment in an area after a larger quake, and that is supposed to apply until the next shock comes along that is the same size or bigger than the one that the aftershocks are said to stem from. Technically, then, aftershocks can go on for decades.

Okay, fine. But it doesn't seem to explain the whole deal to me, or allow for the fact that there may be a range of mechanisms involved that are not directly considered: not all aftershocks have to be caused in precisely the same way, I mean. It's matters of timing, placement/grouping, depth, distance from the original quake or rupture, other faults in the region that may also be under stress, effects of triggering by quakes or creep in distant places... So many factors that can be involved, but the standard answer is, "Oh, they're just aftershocks. It's normal."

Fine, maybe it's normal, but what is normal -- or more importantly, what seismic behavior in such a region is not normal?

I guess all I'm saying is that maybe we need to look deeper and wonder more: chaos effects -- the Butterfly in Beijing concept, tidal forces, volcanic forces, coriolis forces and so on... The interplay of energies is incredibly complex and to me, "aftershock" seems such an inadequate word to cover all of this.

About my posts: no worries, my friend.
At least they are logged in the thread and available any time. No hurry.

ETA: it's half past midnight here so I'm going to take an "early" night (compared to recent ones
). Stay well, everyone, stay safe... See you tomorrow...


edit on 16/9/11 by JustMike because: I added an edit. That's the reason for the edit.

posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 05:37 PM
reply to post by JustMike

I kinda suspect there are many connections within and on the earth that we dont know about. I liken it to acupuncture. Touch one thing and it affects somewhere else.

Another example, though this may be a little further out, when BP finally blew the BOP off the wellhead, there was a massive expulsion of gas and oil. And the pressure they had to exert to finally pry the BOP lose was equally massive. Macondo was a deep well miles into the earth. When the wellhead blew, and ejected untold amounts of hyrocarbons in a massive pressure burst, this had to create vacuum in the well bottom that did what? I don't know, but I do know that 1 and a half hours later the New Zealand quake happened, and the antipode for Macondo is in Australia, and if you draw a line between the two, it passes right through the epicenter of the quake. Now, I dont know what to make of it, but the only way we'll ever know about these connections is through documenting them and then seeing if patterns emerge. Of course we'll probably never have another Macondo (i hope, I hope, I hope) so no patterns there.

Anyway, the theory is interesting and Ill stay aware of it.

posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 05:51 PM
reply to post by JustMike

That's quite mind boggling really... to see a pattern and tentatively predict from it within a time frame, with relative accuracy. The 3 day window is interesting, as (here I go with left field stuff!
), after peeking at CME's, it always seemed a largish quake hit somewhere within a 3 day window (no data at hand to say for sure what minimum magnitude it sparked) .

Now I never did get round to correlating data between which side of the earth was facing when it hit or indeed, where any subsequent earthquakes happened. It was just one of those, 'oh look at that - a relatively significant earthquake has happened within 3 days of a CME hitting!'

But if your 180 degree idea holds true, maybe it would've applied in those instances too?

I'll go take a looksee back at old data (if it's still available) and see if I'm talking out of my armpits on this one!

But back to your theories. I wonder why the magic 3 days? Why should energy take 3 days to propagate through the lithosphere? If that's only around 100km thick, maybe you could check to see if the earthquakes you 'predicted' (that's not a derogatory comment Mike) were within 100km depth? May help add to your theory.

posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 10:00 PM
reply to post by jadedANDcynical

jade, his (Nik's ) account ( and the documentationally) unverifiable story of the police officers responding to the event was that not only was Tesla's lab shaking but surrounding buildings as well , and when the police entered the lab Tesla was "vigorously" destroying the device with a hammer . Given the invention of his valvular conduit ( one way air 'check valve') patent number: 1,329,559, his construction of the perfect mechanical resonator sometime in (edit: before) 1919 is almost a certainty.

The wardencliff tower was never completed ( damn close though ) , because J.p. morgan was trying to tie up his consolidation of power and had no liking for the idea of a 'wireless' infrastructure that could not be choke point operated.Which is why Nikola, unusually for him, was keeping a lot under his hat and was not running experiments at Wardencliff ( he saw it as his new "permanent" income source (after tearing up his patent royalties contract with westinghouse so that they could fend off a morgan take over) and new workshop) the point being that if it was Tesla experimentally verifying the towers "ability to transfere energy through natural mediums" it would have been extremely secret ....although Tesla himself thought he was responsible for the Tunguska 'blast' and remember his patent 787,412 was a means of transmitting energy through the ionosphere to one of the reciprocal antipodal points on the globe ( which was not re-discovered until Bernard Eastlund applied for a patent ( 4,686,605) in 1987)

now remember that Tesla ( not marconi whom was a F'n patent thief) invented radio ( p.s. smithsonian : you suck) , and his patent battles on this matter were finally vindicated after his death ( by the supreme court ). The reason he won is that his radio systems used multiple 'tuned' resonators ( at least two but three for secure communications ) , his energy through the ionosphere transfer patent (787,412) uses only a single resonator ...

if one was transfering energy , harmonically ( a state of resonance) through the ionissphere with one resonator nad at some antipodal point on the planet had anther resonator 'tuned' to the same frequency then you would have a simple but insanely powerful radio / energy transmitter.

now if one of the resonators is electromagnetic and the other is "mechanical" , but deep in the ground one could transfere energy in huge quantities ( almost unimaginably huge ) to almost any level of substrata that was vibrating in a way to catch it. ( remember how electricity, electromagnetic field , and force are related ...the right hand may want to look up magnetostriction also ( it's what makes the motion sensors in nintendo controllers work),

just a couple of thoughts AS i begin reading this thread ;-)
edit on 16-9-2011 by Silverlok because: timelines are awesome

edit on 16-9-2011 by Silverlok because: reading is funtomental , er, apparently

posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 01:09 AM
Ok,TM is a no show,it's all quite.
A wait and see mode.
We know that JPL,NASA,and USGS can predict earthquakes far better then what is let on,and the public has no access to.
The alert was never sent out,if something imminent was coming and they knew it I would hope that they would do the right thing.
everything is quite now,
SOOOO,back to our normal daily lives.

edit on 17-9-2011 by kdog1982 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 01:13 AM
reply to post by onthelookout

Man, thank you for that. I deeply appreciate your fervor in extolling my efforts here.

There are a coupe of posters out there whom have been on the receiving end of acid and fire(10,000 nerd points for anyone who knows what this reference is) due to the troubles they've caused within threads., that I think would not share your eloquent expression of thanks to me with an underpinning support.

A star? Maybe a tarnished one, I'm just me man. Trying to piece together a rather interesting puzzle at the moment and doing my best to express myself in a manner which is both erudite and clarifying.

Once more unto the breach

Originally posted by Bugglesby


Sigh - it sounds nuts! I think I had better go back to page one of this thread!!
edit on 16-9-2011 by Bugglesby because: credit where credit's due!

When you're stuck sometimes the best place to go is back to the beginning.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the absence of a thing can sometimes be as telling as it's presence.

Maybe TM isn't saying anything because he thinks we're on the right track. Maybe he got black bagged. Who's to say?

There's still a lot to look through in what TM has given us already and when you include the new resources that have assembled themselves here and the abilities of this group of like minded individuals has learned and synthesized from a few tantalizing bits. I can honestly say that I am proud to be included.

Originally posted by tmiddlebrook36

But the bottom line is, the plates are in motion and heating up. Big ones.....probably everywhere soon as far as I can tell. In fact they already are happening. And all that released pressure is going somewhere else....


**** Closest post to date. And, yes, I do log on to read what people are writing as I cannot be responsible for information being entirely leaked. You should ALL doubt me. In science, skepticism is the most priceless position. Nothing came from our MB yesterday, (simply stated: Morning Briefing). People are trying to piece a ton of information together and this science is so very new and the data sometimes contradicting, so you can imagine their hesitation. Bottom line; there is specific and credible information supporting theories being presented, modified, and redetermined on literally an hourly basis. Please reread GESS. Some of you are nearly spot on in theory. I remain skeptical myself, however I have been around this world for many years and never before has science pointed in one direction more. Stay prepared.

If everything is going to be heating up under the plates then we've got...

Global heating coming from within the earth itself?

This little put in mind of a post I did in this thread by SonoftheSun and a follow up post regarding the heating of the lower oceans.

It's happening and no one in the mainstream scientific community (scoff) can seem to account for it. It is postulated within that thread that it is due in part to some heretofore unknown geological process. In fact the heating of the deep ocean layers:

The scientists found that the strongest deep warming occurred in the water around Antarctica, and the warming lessens as it spreads around the globe. The temperature increases are small — about 0.05 degrees Fahrenheit (0.03 degrees Celsius) per decade in the deep Southern Ocean, and less elsewhere. But the large volume of the ocean over which they are found and the high capacity of water to absorb heat means that this warming accounts for a huge amount of energy storage.

So, how much energy are we talking about here to heat that volume of water?

This amount of energy would be the equivalent of giving every person on Earth five 1,400-Watt hair dryers, and running them constantly during the 20-year study period, said study team member and oceanographer Gregory Johnson of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

And how much of the rise in sea level is attributable to this portion of energy released into the oceas?

Sea level has been rising at around one-eighth of an inch (3 millimeters) per year on average since 1993, with about half of that caused by the ocean expanding as it's heated, and the other half due to additional water added to the ocean, mostly from melting continental ice.

The oceanographers note that deep warming of the Southern Ocean accounts for about one-twentieth of an inch (1.2 mm) per year of the sea-level rise around Antarctica in the past two decades.

ARGH! (calms down) more to follow...

posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 01:29 AM
reply to post by jadedANDcynical

One half of the total rise of the sea level is due to thermal expansion, at deep levels within the ocean. This isn't being caused by CO2 in the atmosphere or even increases in solation.

To say that there are processes we don't understand about our earth (even at the postulated advanced levels we discussed here) is like saying that the ocean is a bit on the damp side and just a tad wide.

Something is obviously happening deep within the earth to cause this heating, I would not be surprised if it also contributed to things like the Afar Gap region in Africa in which the land is stretching itself apart and the beginnings of a new sea basin are making themselves known.

How wide was the rift that opened offshore of Honshu after the 9.1 quake took place? Not a small fissure opening up by any definition. Are there any reports of other fissures opening up in unexpected places?

All questions looking for answers. I collect questions like some people collect dust. You can never have too many good questions, they can be used to tear a flimsy argument to shreds or can strengthen the weakest construct if applied in the proper way.

Remember, it's not what (or who) you know, it's how you use what you know.

One of my mentors in life would always say that “wisdom is the management of knowledge.”

If one has the proper perspective on things, one can use a surprisingly small amount of knowledge in remarkably effective ways.

posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 03:00 AM
Just to let you all know...I am still here.

Had a lot going on today with family so that comes first.

I will gone a good portion of tomorrow too...but I WILL be back. TM hasn't said anything...which right now, I am feeling is a good thing. Right?

Japans new rash of quakes is still weighing on is the slow-down on the West Coast. I have noticed this pattern before. Almost like an inhalation/exhalation. The lack of deep tremors AGAIN today solidifies that perception. Be prepared for an uptick in quakes along the coast the next 24-48 hrs. (hopefully she lets her breath out slowly.

posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 11:16 AM

Originally posted by westcoast

TM hasn't said anything...which right now, I am feeling is a good thing. Right?

Japans new rash of quakes is still weighing on is the slow-down on the West Coast. I have noticed this pattern before. Almost like an inhalation/exhalation. The lack of deep tremors AGAIN today solidifies that perception. Be prepared for an uptick in quakes along the coast the next 24-48 hrs. (hopefully she lets her breath out slowly.

Will be looking for an uptick. The thing that is puzzling concerning the recent ETS off the CSZ (which you originally enlightened us to but I took credit for, oops) is that, all ETSs in the CSZ since they first started being aware of them in the early 90s have always followed the same pattern.....until the most recent one. This troubles me but I dont know why.

Concerning TM and the group he works for. I think they are scratching their heads trying to understand their own data. The swarm in LA area didnt produce the effects they expected so its back to the drawing board. its just a hunch.

posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 11:44 AM
reply to post by Robin Marks

I'll have some on that “E” word you've thrown out there in a moment since you went ahead and went there...

I just read your post in quake watch about your “wave theory” and I've been browsing some of the resources Honor93 (HUGE thanks to you for these!) and others have shared and found several very interesting things.

To whit:

The analysis of two global data sets of large earthquakes (2010 - 2011, 30 samples of M ≥ 7R and 1901-2011, 178 samples of M ≥ 8R) reveals that there exists a cause and effect relation between the vertical tidal M1 component amplitude peak and the time of occurrence of the latter EQs. A physical model mechanism is postulated that justifies the obtained results. It is shown that the tidal waves can trigger a large EQ, despite their small amplitude, provided that the seismogenic area is under critical stress load conditions.


The results of this analysis have shown that the vertical component of M1 triggers a significant number of large EQs exactly on the peak of its amplitude. This is due to the fact that the lithosphere is driven at maxima of stress load at the same time as the M1 amplitude peak. The no. of the EQs that coincide with the M1 peak is well above (133.31% and 72%) from what is expected as a random coincidence.

Report at the Cornell University Library

Now on to your incredibly inflammatory inclusion of that dreaded comet in this discussion. If you think it's only whack-job conspiracy nuts who are interested in possible correlations between celestial objects and earthquakes, you'd be dead wrong...

I here demonstrate empirically my georesonator concept in which tidally induced magnification of Earth masses' resonance causes seismicity. To that end, I show that all strong (~M6+) earthquakes of 2010 occurred during the Earth's long (t > 3 day) astronomical alignments within our solar system. I then show that the same holds true for all very strong (~M8+) earthquakes of the decade of 2000's. Finally, the strongest (M8.6+) earthquakes of the past century are shown to have occurred during the Earth's multiple long alignments, whereas half of the high-strongest (M9+) ones occurred during Full Moon. I used the comet C/2010 X1 (Elenin), as it has been adding to robustness in terms of very strong seismicity since 2007 (in terms of strongest seismicity: since 1965). The Elenin will continue intensifying the Earth's very strong seismicity until August-October, 2011. Approximate forecast of earthquakes based on my discoveries is feasible. This demonstration proves my hyperresonator concept, arrived at earlier as a mathematical-physical solution to the most general extension of the georesonator concept possible.

Again at Cornell

Oddly enough, this person discusses resonance in relation to earthquakes as well. The document is secured and the text is not selectable. I think ATS media is still buggered so I can't even take a screen shot to upload, but in the introductory paragraphs, he goes over resonance and how the oscillations within the solar system have corresponding resonant oscillations within the earth. The guy has done his homework and the report is full of charts, graphs and maths which all seem to indicate a correlation.

to be continued...

new topics

top topics

<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in