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: 42share:
Originally posted by PuterMan
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.
I am not endorsing or rejecting this thread , only exposing the fact that you were flat wrong when you said foreshocks are not part of the (modern where the F have you been ) science of earth quake prediction.
"ohh I bemone wikipedia" but fail to address a huge area of the actual field of cutting edge science ,so given that insight into your and only your argument I am not endorsing this guy right or wrong.. I am only sticking to 'denying ignorance', and when someone ( you since you have a reality problem, should I say it a few times you ,you , you , ) cannot except that they are flat out wrong , and still on the attack , there is no reason to consider them ( even remotely F'n) human. what the hell do I care if he is right or wrong ; you being WRONG, let's say that again . WRONG about fore shocks , says...ohh.so ... very...much about you..cutie pie
edit on 21-9-2011 by Silverlok because: because it does feel good to drain the
force out of a dying body
edit on 21-9-2011 by Silverlok because: so shouls I say the word hoax or hoax thresad a few times, or is
that just reality fodder to you too , I am ardent fuxor in the 'hoax thread ' wow I don't look like an ass
reply to post by PuterMan
Italy would disagree: Seismologists tried for manslaughter over quake
And, if you'll recall, the Kobe quake of 1995 was also preceded by rather distinct foreshocks. Foreshocks are not always ex post facto.
Not that I believe tmiddlebrook to be legit, but, you'll notice, there's no scaremongering going on in this thread. There's diligent research and informative cooperation. We know the threat from Cascadia and surrounding faults exists. So, is it really scaremongering to research the scientific studies published with relation to those faults and their activity? That's really all we've been doing. If there's something wrong with that, then I guess the whole scientific community should grind to a stop and rethink their analytical approach.
Italy would disagree: Seismologists tried for manslaughter over quake
And, if you'll recall, the Kobe quake of 1995 was also preceded by rather distinct foreshocks. Foreshocks are not always ex post facto.
Not that I believe tmiddlebrook to be legit, but, you'll notice, there's no scaremongering going on in this thread. There's diligent research and informative cooperation. We know the threat from Cascadia and surrounding faults exists. So, is it really scaremongering to research the scientific studies published with relation to those faults and their activity? That's really all we've been doing. If there's something wrong with that, then I guess the whole scientific community should grind to a stop and rethink their analytical approach.
edit on 21-9-2011 by CLPrime because: (no
reason given)
I guess to be on the safe side,just leave So.Cal. for a month long vacation.
Better to be safe then sorry.
So,TM,like West Coast asked,what kind of indicators would one might be looking for??
A hint would be helpful,since there have been so many on here busting their butt trying to figure this out.
Thanks in advance.
Better to be safe then sorry.
So,TM,like West Coast asked,what kind of indicators would one might be looking for??
A hint would be helpful,since there have been so many on here busting their butt trying to figure this out.
Thanks in advance.
edit on 21-9-2011 by kdog1982 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Doodle19815
Thank you Zworld for this info. So if the pressure is being released and going somewhere else, in what form is it being release and where is it going?
The pressure is released primarily as P and S waves. P waves are capable of travel through anything, including potentially the center of the earth and would be the energy that effects the antipodes or other alignments, while S waves can only travel through solids. The energy they posses travels in the earth until it meats a blocking point, ie locked fault. There it is stored until released.
Im in the country right now with no power cord and cant take time with low battery. But soon Ill post the data Ive wanted to post that shows how this pressure and energy has locked in certain places, primarily the CSZ.
Concerning TM, I dont agree at all with the thought that we should be looking at S Cal only. Im sure the LA EQ watch group agrees, but the Cascadia watch group doesn't.
reply to post by Silverlok
OK, very simply the instances referred to for instance Banda Aceh in 2004, the Sumatra quake in 2002 was determined as being a foreshock. NOT before Banda but after. That is the point I am making. All of that you referred to was determined after the events and not before them. Subsequently the 2005 Sumatra 8.5 was considered still to be an aftershock of the Banda quake.
You cannot determine that any quake is a foreshock until after another larger event has taken place. Whether a quake is a foreshock or not will depend on whether it is in the same rupture area.
An indicator of an larger earthquake being imminent MAY be an increase in seismic activity but again whilst you can conjecture that these may be foreshocks - and that is reasonable to do so - you cannot state that they are foreshocks. That statement is not possible until after a larger magnitude event has taken place in the same rupture zone.
So just to reiterate
I am not wrong and no I am not having a hard time with anything thank you. I stand by what I said. A geologist would not use that term in that manner, neither would a geologist quote Wikipedia, even if he was trying to cover his tracks. Frankly I don't think most geologists would even think of being that devious since they would just write what they know without need for reference.
And no I was not flat wrong. You are still not getting a grip of it. I never said foreshocks were not part of anything. I said they cannot be part of prediction because they cannot be determined as foreshocks - I am talking terminology here - until after the main event. I know about modern earthquake prediction in principle and foreshocks are actually not a particularly good one (- because they are not foreshocks until later ) There are other methods up and coming and I do believe that soon earthquake prediction in the short term will be possible.
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 ?
OK, very simply the instances referred to for instance Banda Aceh in 2004, the Sumatra quake in 2002 was determined as being a foreshock. NOT before Banda but after. That is the point I am making. All of that you referred to was determined after the events and not before them. Subsequently the 2005 Sumatra 8.5 was considered still to be an aftershock of the Banda quake.
You cannot determine that any quake is a foreshock until after another larger event has taken place. Whether a quake is a foreshock or not will depend on whether it is in the same rupture area.
An indicator of an larger earthquake being imminent MAY be an increase in seismic activity but again whilst you can conjecture that these may be foreshocks - and that is reasonable to do so - you cannot state that they are foreshocks. That statement is not possible until after a larger magnitude event has taken place in the same rupture zone.
So just to reiterate
WRONG , are you having a hard time with that
I am not wrong and no I am not having a hard time with anything thank you. I stand by what I said. A geologist would not use that term in that manner, neither would a geologist quote Wikipedia, even if he was trying to cover his tracks. Frankly I don't think most geologists would even think of being that devious since they would just write what they know without need for reference.
only exposing the fact that you were flat wrong when you said foreshocks are not part of the (modern where the F have you been ) science of earth quake prediction.
And no I was not flat wrong. You are still not getting a grip of it. I never said foreshocks were not part of anything. I said they cannot be part of prediction because they cannot be determined as foreshocks - I am talking terminology here - until after the main event. I know about modern earthquake prediction in principle and foreshocks are actually not a particularly good one (- because they are not foreshocks until later ) There are other methods up and coming and I do believe that soon earthquake prediction in the short term will be possible.
edit on 21/9/2011 by
PuterMan because: (no reason given)
reply to post by CLPrime
Oh, I've been following that story since the physicist first came to light after the quake. One problem though in putting too much emphasis in the story, the Italians go to court all the time over everything. I highly doubt they'll be found guilty.
With regards to our newest debriefing, I'll be brief, I know I'm too full of myself almost all of the time, I will boil it down to one the one word where I have a problem, "masses"
That's all I'm gonna say.
Oh, I've been following that story since the physicist first came to light after the quake. One problem though in putting too much emphasis in the story, the Italians go to court all the time over everything. I highly doubt they'll be found guilty.
With regards to our newest debriefing, I'll be brief, I know I'm too full of myself almost all of the time, I will boil it down to one the one word where I have a problem, "masses"
That's all I'm gonna say.
edit on 21-9-2011 by Robin Marks because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by Silverlok
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 ?
OK, very simply the instances referred to for instance Banda Aceh in 2004, the Sumatra quake in 2002 was determined as being a foreshock. NOT before Banda but after. That is the point I am making. All of that you referred to was determined after the events and not before them. Subsequently the 2005 Sumatra 8.5 was considered still to be an aftershock of the Banda quake.
You cannot determine that any quake is a foreshock until after another larger event has taken place. Whether a quake is a foreshock or not will depend on whether it is in the same rupture area.
An indicator of an larger earthquake being imminent MAY be an increase in seismic activity but again whilst you can conjecture that these may be foreshocks - and that is reasonable to do so - you cannot state that they are foreshocks. That statement is not possible until after a larger magnitude event has taken place in the same rupture zone.
So just to reiterate
WRONG , are you having a hard time with that
I am not wrong and no I am not having a hard time with anything thank you. I stand by what I said. A geologist would not use that term in that manner, neither would a geologist quote Wikipedia, even if he was trying to cover his tracks. Frankly I don't think most geologists would even think of being that devious since they would just write what they know without need for reference.
so far I have referred to nothing but the science, you forcefully implied for-shocks have no relation to prediction , prove it ...
edit on
21-9-2011 by Silverlok because: because this guy is a stupid shill
Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by Silverlok
f... You are still not getting a grip of it....)
tell me why this is again
reply to post by CLPrime
No indeed it is not, and you know perfectly well I believe that I do not think that.
There is a very big difference between studies and scientific reports and the discussions that heve been going on here and on westcoasts threads about Cascadia and the manner in which TM broached the subject. That was/is scaremongering.
Think of rocks in tanks. I equate this to that.
So, is it really scaremongering to research the scientific studies published with relation to those faults and their activity? That's really all we've been doing. If there's something wrong with that, then I guess the whole scientific community should grind to a stop and rethink their analytical approach.
No indeed it is not, and you know perfectly well I believe that I do not think that.
There is a very big difference between studies and scientific reports and the discussions that heve been going on here and on westcoasts threads about Cascadia and the manner in which TM broached the subject. That was/is scaremongering.
Think of rocks in tanks. I equate this to that.
Originally posted by PuterMan
And no I was not flat wrong.
yes you are ,, as you say time will tell, not endorsing ( of which i know little ) this event but endorsing the science that will encompass it , because I recognize crap by the smell no matter what time it is (btw is that a K of 19 I see )
edit on 21-9-2011 by Silverlok because: (no
reason given)
reply to post by Silverlok
I guess I sort of give up if you cannot understand that an earthquake cannot be a fore shock until after a main shock. That really is fairly basic.
I am not saying that earthquakes, that later are determined to be fore shocks, should not be studied and yes it can be suggested that these might be fore shocks, but they are NOT fore shocks until after the main event and I don't believe any geologist would refer to them definitively as fore shocks whilst not knowing if there was a main event.
Perhaps you might have to translate that. It does not make sense to me.
I believe not always. Much is invented by people who are not scientists, at least not officially.
I guess I sort of give up if you cannot understand that an earthquake cannot be a fore shock until after a main shock. That really is fairly basic.
I am not saying that earthquakes, that later are determined to be fore shocks, should not be studied and yes it can be suggested that these might be fore shocks, but they are NOT fore shocks until after the main event and I don't believe any geologist would refer to them definitively as fore shocks whilst not knowing if there was a main event.
yes you are ,, as you say time will tell, not endorsing ( of which i know little ) this event but endorsing the science that will encompass it , because I recognize crap by the smell no matter what time it is (btw is that a K of 19 I see )
Perhaps you might have to translate that. It does not make sense to me.
edit on 21/9/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)
by the way has science always been invented by scientists? , just asking
I believe not always. Much is invented by people who are not scientists, at least not officially.
edit on 21/9/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)
Wow that was exciting!
Since today's quake action is on a snails pace.....Maybe you two could entertain us a wee bit more
Since today's quake action is on a snails pace.....Maybe you two could entertain us a wee bit more
er what ? you were talking about geologists earlier and I am sending last post to a friend at Berkeley, she will find it hilarious(fore shocks are
part of science now, you , well you should know but you don't), , and thank you for trying to define my intellect by your acceptance or non
acceptance of peoples believe in your world view. I do not believe what you believe and you have already shown a lack of concerted intellect. that ias
is not a thermometer for right or wrong , especially on a conspiracy site, so we can DETERMINE your problem is ego, otherwise you might engage in
discussion
Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by Silverlok
I guess I sort of give up if you cannot understand that an earthquake cannot be a fore shock until after a main shock. That really is fairly basic.
I am not saying that earthquakes, that later are determined to be fore shocks, should not be studied and yes it can be suggested that these might be fore shocks, but they are NOT fore shocks until after the main event and I don't believe any geologist would refer to them definitively as fore shocks whilst not knowing if there was a main event.
Originally posted by PuterMan
... you know perfectly well I believe that I do not think that.
I know you don't...which is why I'm surprised by your disdain for what we've been doing here.
There is a very big difference between studies and scientific reports and the discussions that heve been going on here and on westcoasts threads about Cascadia
The discussions that have been going on have been legitimate attempts to research these areas. No one here is scared. We're just doing what we do naturally...which is, in this case, to search for causes and effects in seismology.
and the manner in which TM broached the subject. That was/is scaremongering.
Perhaps.
Regardless (and I mean this in the nicest way possible...so don't take this the wrong way), we don't need PuterMan, as knowledgeable as he is, to tell us we're all running scared, or that what we're doing is wrong. I'd appreciate you giving us the benefit of the doubt. Unlike some on this site, the members you're talking to aren't a bunch of children, in age or mindset.
reply to post by Silverlok
Well good. I hope your friend in Berkeley understands that an earthquake cannot be a foreshock until there is a main shock. That is all I am saying and yet you still do not see it, but consider it necessary to attempt to belittle me because of your own lack of understanding.
Anyone who understands earthquake will not state categorically that an earthquake is a foreshock because it is not possible to do so until after another larger event. Maybe I need to repeat that several times for you, since you think I need things repeated, until it sinks in. Or maybe it just won't because you have closed your mind to anything other than what you consider was said, rather than what was said.
Well good. I hope your friend in Berkeley understands that an earthquake cannot be a foreshock until there is a main shock. That is all I am saying and yet you still do not see it, but consider it necessary to attempt to belittle me because of your own lack of understanding.
Anyone who understands earthquake will not state categorically that an earthquake is a foreshock because it is not possible to do so until after another larger event. Maybe I need to repeat that several times for you, since you think I need things repeated, until it sinks in. Or maybe it just won't because you have closed your mind to anything other than what you consider was said, rather than what was said.
A little off topic,but did anyone notice the post date and time turn black after 10pm est?
And only on this thread?
And only on this thread?
reply to post by CLPrime
Hey stop chopping up my sentences to say something else!
The "There is a very big difference between studies and scientific reports and the discussions that heve been going on here and on westcoasts threads about Cascadia" was not in isolation.
It was all one. Maybe I should use more punctuation. I always did fail at that.
In other words what is being discussed here and scientific report (together - joined part of the text) have no similarity to the way the subject was broached by TM.
Why are you thinking I was stating anyone here was scared?
I don't take it the wrong way and as I have stated before I have great respect for your point of view on many things. I am not doubting anyone on this thread - basically since most are well known to me - except the one person who I believe is just raising a scare story for what ever reasons he/she has for doing so.Oh and I don't think that any one is running scared and I am not saying what YOU - meaning those other than TM - are doing is wrong.
Hey stop chopping up my sentences to say something else!
The "There is a very big difference between studies and scientific reports and the discussions that heve been going on here and on westcoasts threads about Cascadia" was not in isolation.
It was all one. Maybe I should use more punctuation. I always did fail at that.
There is a very big difference between studies and scientific reports and the discussions that have been going on here and on westcoasts threads about Cascadia and the manner in which TM broached the subject.
In other words what is being discussed here and scientific report (together - joined part of the text) have no similarity to the way the subject was broached by TM.
Why are you thinking I was stating anyone here was scared?
we don't need PuterMan, as knowledgeable as he is, to tell us we're all running scared, or that what we're doing is wrong. I'd appreciate you giving us the benefit of the doubt. Unlike some on this site, the members you're talking to aren't a bunch of children, in age or mindset.
I don't take it the wrong way and as I have stated before I have great respect for your point of view on many things. I am not doubting anyone on this thread - basically since most are well known to me - except the one person who I believe is just raising a scare story for what ever reasons he/she has for doing so.Oh and I don't think that any one is running scared and I am not saying what YOU - meaning those other than TM - are doing is wrong.
edit on 21/9/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)