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.

 

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

page: 41
30
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by tmiddlebrook36
 


Pure BS. They would not be expecting fore shocks because they are not fore shocks until there is a main shock. Your terminology is wrong.

Sorry I don't believe a single word of this. There is NOT going to be ANY major event in SC in the next 45 days, depending on what you call major but your original post say M8. Ain't gonna happen friend. Wrong area.

I suggest you toddle off and post your fairy stories somewhere else. Maybe you should team up with Alexander Retrov. Mm no that wouldn't work. He says the world will end on the 26th Sept.

See ya on the 8th November when nothing has happened.




posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


I'm sorry you feel this way, however I encourage EVERYONE to question this. I want everyone to be thinking about this daily, informing as many people. Please know that I'm not here to argue, however I do want to correct your science.

A foreshock is an earthquake that occurs before a larger seismic event (the mainshock) and is related to it in both time and space. The designation of an earthquake as foreshock, mainshock or aftershock is only possible after the event.[1]

Please stay alert



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Oh no, the trolls finally found us. Our day in the sun is over.

I still don't understand why some people think they know everything and make it their job to force and badger everyone else to see thing their way or be punished with rebuke and ridicule.

It's just so... last century. Ugh.


Are we even sure that TM is referring to South Carolina? It could be an acronym for just about anything. Not gonna leap till I'm done looking...
edit on 21-9-2011 by DamaSan because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by tmiddlebrook36
 


Are you a geologist?
I was wondering cause you just quoted wiki word for word.

A foreshock is an earthquake that occurs before a larger seismic event (the mainshock) and is related to it in both time and space. The designation of an earthquake as foreshock, mainshock or aftershock is only possible after the event.[1]


en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 21-9-2011 by kdog1982 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by DamaSan
 


Not South Carolina.....SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

be prepared, stay alert



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by berkeleygal
 


Whoops. Damn iPhone auto-spell. My bad. That's what I get for typing too fast.
edit on 21-9-2011 by DamaSan because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by kdog1982
 


Sorry for the confusion. I used Wikipedia as a reference as I know whatever I type will be scrutinized as false. By referencing an outside source, it validates the definition. I never go back and forth with members. Please spread the word. I'll advise on more information when available. All for now.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by tmiddlebrook36
 


Well thanks indeedy. Now I would have thought that someone who was 'in the business' shall we say would not need to cut and paste from Wikipedia and then leave a footnote number in. (Bit of a giveaway that)


A foreshock is an earthquake that occurs before a larger seismic event (the mainshock) and is related to it in both time and space. The designation of an earthquake as foreshock, mainshock or aftershock is only possible after the event.[1]


And oh look here we are Wikipedia: Foreshock


A foreshock is an earthquake that occurs before a larger seismic event (the mainshock) and is related to it in both time and space. The designation of an earthquake as foreshock, mainshock or aftershock is only possible after the event.[1]


Complete with the [1]


I would also remind you that quoting text from an external site without proper attribution is against the T & C

In fact what you posted bore out what I said, and I did not need to look it up by the way. You said,


however I do want to correct your science.


You then put up text which confirmed what I said "They would not be expecting fore shocks because they are not fore shocks until there is a main shock. Your terminology is wrong. "


edit on 21/9/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 08:06 PM
link   
Thanks for posting TM, don't know
what to think at this point but I will
be watching S Calif. as I always do.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by kdog1982
 


Thanks kdog, and apolgies for repeating. I did not see your post.

No geologist would quote Wiki.




posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by tmiddlebrook36
 


Pure BS. They would not be expecting fore shocks because they are not fore shocks until there is a main shock. Your terminology is wrong.

Sorry I don't believe a single word of this. There is NOT going to be ANY major event in SC in the next 45 days, depending on what you call major but your original post say M8. Ain't gonna happen friend. Wrong area.

I suggest you toddle off and post your fairy stories somewhere else. Maybe you should team up with Alexander Retrov. Mm no that wouldn't work. He says the world will end on the 26th Sept.

See ya on the 8th November when nothing has happened.


A direct quote from wiki




Foreshock activity has been detected for about 40% of all moderate to large earthquakes,[2] and up to 70% for events of M>7.0.[3] They occur from a matter of minutes to days or even longer before the main shock, for example the 2002 Sumatra earthquake is regarded as a foreshock of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake with a delay of more than two years between the two events


So what are you trying to prove with that massive intellect, I am not sure I understand, foreshock doesn't exist except wait it does , and even worse for big quakes , and the separation can be two years (that we know of ) ... so beside being ENTIRELY wrong your point is ?
edit on 21-9-2011 by Silverlok because: t and s are such sluts



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by tmiddlebrook36
 


Ha ha nice excuse.

No you made a blunder and now you are trying to cover up.

I shall leave you to it. I shall say no more on this thread until the 8th of November.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Silverlok
 



So what are you trying to prove with that massive intellect, I am not sure I understand, foreshock doesn't exist except wait is does , and even worse for big quakes , and the separation can be two years ... so beside being ENTIRELY wrong your point is ?


You are the one who is entirely wrong. They cannot be determined as foreshocks until after the event. Those determinations were made after the event.

Rather than making attempts to belittle me trying reading and understanding what you are posting.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by tmiddlebrook36
 


Glad to see you made it back. Was beginning to worry something happened to you. Stay safe and thanks for keeping us informed. Post again as soon as you can.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by tmiddlebrook36
 


Ha ha nice excuse.

No you made a blunder and now you are trying to cover up.

I shall leave you to it. I shall say no more on this thread until the 8th of November.


That's probably really good idea, for you, hoax or not your "logic" and "arguments" are here for us to enjoy, one way or another



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


Not a problem,puterman
I agree,a geologist quoting from wiki would be like me quoting a fictional story my child wrote as fact.
It would be the last place anyone in the scientific community would go for facts.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Silverlok
 


Time will tell.

And will you apologise when there is no major quake in California? No didn't think so.

Enjoy the scaremongering in the thread.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by Silverlok
 



So what are you trying to prove with that massive intellect, I am not sure I understand, foreshock doesn't exist except wait is does , and even worse for big quakes , and the separation can be two years ... so beside being ENTIRELY wrong your point is ?


You are the one who is entirely wrong. They cannot be determined as foreshocks until after the event. Those determinations were made after the event.

Rather than making attempts to belittle me trying reading and understanding what you are posting.


here is an example of what belittling you might be like : " you have no cogent argument and basically are depending on abuse and intimidation to defend your points "

the example of what I "asked' was:

fore-shocks are a scientific fact , if one is trying to use them to predict coming quakes ...they are at the edge of cutting tech , so YOU ARE WRONG< WRONG , are you having a hard time with that ... since you said you wouldn't ost again until...blah blah blah apparently you view the world differently , so why not explain your view to us instead of describing your world view only as an expression of deteriorating someone Else's ?



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Given the nature of this information (the dire consequences if right), I am going to reserve my judgement for now.

I think it very wise to be skeptical...that will keep us looking.


Thank you TM for the additional info...ofcourse, I realize hard proof is difficult since (as you say) the reports are not public...anything at all would be appreciated. If I am following Putermans assesment correctly, there are any number of quakes in Southern California on a daily basis. We could call ALL of them foreshocks if we cared too...but that wouldn't be accurate until proven AFTER the main shock.

You mentioned to be on the lookout for something 'different' about them. I would like to ask..that instead of making us guess, if you are aware of what will be different, why don't you just tell us now? It would lend you credibility and make the warning spread that much faster, which is why you claim to be here.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 

Thank you Putermann for your insite. I think it's a darn shame to scare people. There are so many that come here for information.. And it's just a darn shame to go scaring people just for the fun of it.
Who ever you are Tmiddlebrook, you should be ashamed.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join